Tomb Design Image Released

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html

Oh - was kinda hoping for a marble 'knight' effigy 'medieval' style tomb...

On 12 February 2013 20:11, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
>
>
>



--
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>

Me too, that is dignified but plainer than I had hoped.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:

> Oh - was kinda hoping for a marble 'knight' effigy 'medieval' style tomb...
>
> On 12 February 2013 20:11, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Me too......No effigy?Or bust?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Me too, that is dignified but plainer than I had hoped.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
>
> > Oh - was kinda hoping for a marble 'knight' effigy 'medieval' style tomb...
> >
> > On 12 February 2013 20:11, mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lisa
> > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> >
> > www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Esp as we know what he probably looked like!

On 12 February 2013 20:38, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Me too......No effigy?Or bust?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > Me too, that is dignified but plainer than I had hoped.
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique"
> lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Oh - was kinda hoping for a marble 'knight' effigy 'medieval' style
> tomb...
> > >
> > > On 12 February 2013 20:11, mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lisa
> > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > >
> > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > >
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>



--
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>

The story says this is just the proposed design from the RIII Society. Apparently, everyone who is anyone in U.K. antiquities or craft gets a shot at it.

--- In , "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" wrote:
>
> Esp as we know what he probably looked like!
>
> On 12 February 2013 20:38, Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Me too......No effigy?Or bust?
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 12, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Pamela Bain pbain@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Me too, that is dignified but plainer than I had hoped.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > On Feb 12, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique"
> > lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Oh - was kinda hoping for a marble 'knight' effigy 'medieval' style
> > tomb...
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2013 20:11, mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Lisa
> > > > The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> > > > Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> > > > Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
> > > >
> > > > www.Antiques-Boutique.com http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> > > > Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> > > > View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> > > >
> > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
>
>
>
>
>

The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have meant so much to Richard himself.  In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad nauseum. 


________________________________
mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:



 
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html

I Agree. I said at the time it was comfirmed the remains were Richard that the new tomb should reflect the simple slab that is in place in Leicester Cathedral now

Carole


________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 6:25
Subject: Re: Tomb Design Image Released


 
The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have meant so much to Richard himself.  In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad nauseum. 

________________________________
mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:

 
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html

Do we know how it would be placed? Would there be a place to leave flowers, etc?

(Given the devotion he seems to inspire, they'll probably have to set it behind
a small inset fence or something to keep it from going the way of Oscar Wilde's
lipstick-mark-covered tomb in Paris- though I understand Alexander Hamilton
still has a large number of admirers/defenders, too, who rather remind me of us
Ricardians, and his grave never seems to have anything on it but flower
offerings and occasional love notes when I walk by it.)





________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:25:26 AM
Subject: Re: Tomb Design Image Released


The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have
meant so much to Richard himself. In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to
replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only
argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad
nauseum.

________________________________
mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:


http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html

Yep, I like it and it's a wonderful antithesis to the blingy gold "look at this tomb it proves the Tudors were rightful monarchs" that Henry Tudor was given after his death. 
 
 
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 6:25
Subject: Re: Tomb Design Image Released

 
The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have meant so much to Richard himself.  In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad nauseum. 

________________________________
mcjohn_wt_net mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net> wrote:

 
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html

There was a mention in the article that the cathedral staff are now starting to work out, with various expert consultants, how the floor plan would be altered to accommodate a tomb. One of the considerations is indeed visitors.

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Do we know how it would be placed? Would there be a place to leave flowers, etc?
>
> (Given the devotion he seems to inspire, they'll probably have to set it behind
> a small inset fence or something to keep it from going the way of Oscar Wilde's
> lipstick-mark-covered tomb in Paris- though I understand Alexander Hamilton
> still has a large number of admirers/defenders, too, who rather remind me of us
> Ricardians, and his grave never seems to have anything on it but flower
> offerings and occasional love notes when I walk by it.)
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: ""
>
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 1:25:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Tomb Design Image Released
>
>
> The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have
> meant so much to Richard himself. In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to
> replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only
> argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad
> nauseum.
>
> ________________________________
> mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Also, a figure would be very expensive, I suspect.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have meant so much to Richard himself.  In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad nauseum. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
>
>
>
>  
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

liz williams wrote:
>
> Yep, I like it and it's a wonderful antithesis to the blingy gold "look at this tomb it proves the Tudors were rightful monarchs" that Henry Tudor was given after his death. 
>  
Carol responds:

I like it, too. It seems elegant yet simple, and a medieval-style effigy (they were always idealized, IIRC) would just cause contention. Of course, it's only one plan of many that will probably be proposed. As long as it's respectful (a stated goal of the committee), and inaccessible to vandals, that's all that matters to me.

On another note, does anyone know whether the March 2 conference will be viewable on the Internet? It's impossible for me to attend.

Carol

But, I think the money could be easily found for the reconstruction. This "find" is so important for so many reasons. We have a sitting monarch, but an incomplete history of the monarchies which preceded the House of Windsor. I would think it to be of prime importance to scholars everywhere to prove or disprove as many myths as possible. And, with Royal stamp of approval, the other skeletal remains could or should be examined, as well as further nosing about in Leicester. No one died and made me Queen, but in the scheme of things this is rather recent history and deserves the scholarly, medical and other review so desperately needed.
Pamela

On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:54 AM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



Also, a figure would be very expensive, I suspect.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> The proposed design is rather striking and includes the symbols which would have meant so much to Richard himself. ý In my opinion, it would be wrong to try to replicate a medieval tomb complete with a reclining figure - people would only argue over the figure and the antis would go on about the 'hunchback' ad nauseum.ý
>
>
> ________________________________
> mcjohn_wt_net wrote:
>
>
>
> ý
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-image-tomb-hold-king-Leicester/story-18127706-detail/story.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

Snipped..

>On another note, does anyone know whether the March 2 conference will
>be viewable on the Internet? It's impossible for me to attend.

Hi Carol

*** I don't think it will be - not live anyway. It is being videoed -
so a DVD will become available some time!

BTW the Conference is now fully booked.

HTH

Jac

I am sure it will end up on YouTube! Everything eventually does......

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:14 PM, jacqui <jacqui@...> wrote:

>
> Snipped..
>
> >On another note, does anyone know whether the March 2 conference will
> >be viewable on the Internet? It's impossible for me to attend.
>
> Hi Carol
>
> *** I don't think it will be - not live anyway. It is being videoed -
> so a DVD will become available some time!
>
> BTW the Conference is now fully booked.
>
> HTH
>
> Jac
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
[snip] in the scheme of things this is rather recent history and deserves the scholarly, medical and other review so desperately needed.

Carol responds:

That reminds me of a reaction I had watching the documentary. However normal it may be in scientific circles to speak of five-hundred-year-old genetic material as "ancient DNA," that term seems to imply, at least to the general listener, that the fifteenth century was as ancient as the Hellenistic Greeks, who in turn are as ancient as Tutankhamen, and so on until we reach the Cro-Magnon and beyond. But truly ancient DNA would be at least a million years old. I don't think we'll be extracting any DNA from Homo habilis or Australopithecus Sediba, but I might be wrong on the second count. That would *truly* be ancient DNA. But to call DNA from a man who died only 527 years ago "ancient" implies that he wasn't like us. He wasn't modern. He was medieval, which is ancient.

I'm blathering, sorry. But my point is that it distances him from the viewers and makes him seem a curiosity like the recently discovered jaw of Homo rudolfensis (important to me and more so to paleoanthropologists but with no immediate connection to the lives we live now). Richard is different. Had he not died, English history, and therefore European history and American history, would have been different and maybe, in some respects, better. It's not that his death marks the end of the Middle Ages (odd that it would have that effect in, say, France or Portugal even if it did mean the death of chivalry in England). But his death and life and, for us, his reputation are important in a way that the habilines (much as I enjoy reading and speculating about them) simply aren't.

Even the Greeks and Romans aren't really ancient. In many ways, they were much like us (though admittedly I'd be spinning wool rather than typing right now). But I'm trying to say that the mindset many people have that what happened five hundred )or a thousand or two thousand) years ago is not important is just wrong. We would not be who we are if they hadn't preceded us.

Sorry. I really don't know where all this is coming from. I sit down to respond to a post and these words come out. (Freewriting, we used to call it when I taught freshman composition.) But I really do feel that Richard and the people of his time are not "ancient" people who are no longer relevant. They're us in other times and circumstances, us as we would be if the printing press and industrialization and many other forces had not changed our lives forever and in so doing distanced them from us.

Carol

I agree & disagree with what you've just said, & am trying to wrap my head around what would have been the same in Richard's time & what was so very different that we run the risk of mis-judging based on the assumptions we make today about how the world works.

I suppose human biology & psychology haven't changed much, if at all. Ideas (or as my husband who spends a lot of time thinking about artificial intelligence would say) how we mentally model the world around us, & its predictive accuracy, probably have. My own guesstimate is that it takes about 200 years for an idea to move from being radical to being something that few people question.

As I've started playing catch up on recent writing about Richard, it strikes me how very much of what each author writes is interpretation.

A J


>
> Carol responds:
>
> That reminds me of a reaction I had watching the documentary. However normal it may be in scientific circles to speak of five-hundred-year-old genetic material as "ancient DNA," that term seems to imply, at least to the general listener, that the fifteenth century was as ancient as the Hellenistic Greeks, who in turn are as ancient as Tutankhamen, and so on until we reach the Cro-Magnon and beyond. But truly ancient DNA would be at least a million years old. I don't think we'll be extracting any DNA from Homo habilis or Australopithecus Sediba, but I might be wrong on the second count. That would *truly* be ancient DNA. But to call DNA from a man who died only 527 years ago "ancient" implies that he wasn't like us. He wasn't modern. He was medieval, which is ancient.
>
> I'm blathering, sorry. But my point is that it distances him from the viewers and makes him seem a curiosity like the recently discovered jaw of Homo rudolfensis (important to me and more so to paleoanthropologists but with no immediate connection to the lives we live now). Richard is different. Had he not died, English history, and therefore European history and American history, would have been different and maybe, in some respects, better. It's not that his death marks the end of the Middle Ages (odd that it would have that effect in, say, France or Portugal even if it did mean the death of chivalry in England). But his death and life and, for us, his reputation are important in a way that the habilines (much as I enjoy reading and speculating about them) simply aren't.
>
> Even the Greeks and Romans aren't really ancient. In many ways, they were much like us (though admittedly I'd be spinning wool rather than typing right now). But I'm trying to say that the mindset many people have that what happened five hundred )or a thousand or two thousand) years ago is not important is just wrong. We would not be who we are if they hadn't preceded us.
>
> Sorry. I really don't know where all this is coming from. I sit down to respond to a post and these words come out. (Freewriting, we used to call it when I taught freshman composition.) But I really do feel that Richard and the people of his time are not "ancient" people who are no longer relevant. They're us in other times and circumstances, us as we would be if the printing press and industrialization and many other forces had not changed our lives forever and in so doing distanced them from us.
>
> Carol
>

Carol earlier:
>
> >On another note, does anyone know whether the March 2 conference will >be viewable on the Internet? It's impossible for me to attend.
>
Jac responded:
> *** I don't think it will be - not live anyway. It is being videoed -
> so a DVD will become available some time!

Carol again:

Thanks, Jac. With luck, maybe it will be on You Tube. If not, I'm sure I'll learn all the important stuff here.

Carol

In message <kfhl47+h1bu@...>, justcarol67
<justcarol67@...> writes
>Carol earlier:
>>
>> >On another note, does anyone know whether the March 2 conference
>> >will >be viewable on the Internet? It's impossible for me to attend.
>>
>Jac responded:
>> *** I don't think it will be - not live anyway. It is being videoed -
>> so a DVD will become available some time!
>
>Carol again:
>
>Thanks, Jac. With luck, maybe it will be on You Tube. If not, I'm sure
>I'll learn all the important stuff here.

Me (Jac) again

I think it may well end up on You Tube most things do! If I hear of it
I'll let you all know but usually you all on here know these things
first!!:))))

Carol, you said it so much better that I. However, that was exactly my point.

On Feb 13, 2013, at 5:58 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
[snip] in the scheme of things this is rather recent history and deserves the scholarly, medical and other review so desperately needed.

Carol responds:

That reminds me of a reaction I had watching the documentary. However normal it may be in scientific circles to speak of five-hundred-year-old genetic material as "ancient DNA," that term seems to imply, at least to the general listener, that the fifteenth century was as ancient as the Hellenistic Greeks, who in turn are as ancient as Tutankhamen, and so on until we reach the Cro-Magnon and beyond. But truly ancient DNA would be at least a million years old. I don't think we'll be extracting any DNA from Homo habilis or Australopithecus Sediba, but I might be wrong on the second count. That would *truly* be ancient DNA. But to call DNA from a man who died only 527 years ago "ancient" implies that he wasn't like us. He wasn't modern. He was medieval, which is ancient.

I'm blathering, sorry. But my point is that it distances him from the viewers and makes him seem a curiosity like the recently discovered jaw of Homo rudolfensis (important to me and more so to paleoanthropologists but with no immediate connection to the lives we live now). Richard is different. Had he not died, English history, and therefore European history and American history, would have been different and maybe, in some respects, better. It's not that his death marks the end of the Middle Ages (odd that it would have that effect in, say, France or Portugal even if it did mean the death of chivalry in England). But his death and life and, for us, his reputation are important in a way that the habilines (much as I enjoy reading and speculating about them) simply aren't.

Even the Greeks and Romans aren't really ancient. In many ways, they were much like us (though admittedly I'd be spinning wool rather than typing right now). But I'm trying to say that the mindset many people have that what happened five hundred )or a thousand or two thousand) years ago is not important is just wrong. We would not be who we are if they hadn't preceded us.

Sorry. I really don't know where all this is coming from. I sit down to respond to a post and these words come out. (Freewriting, we used to call it when I taught freshman composition.) But I really do feel that Richard and the people of his time are not "ancient" people who are no longer relevant. They're us in other times and circumstances, us as we would be if the printing press and industrialization and many other forces had not changed our lives forever and in so doing distanced them from us.

Carol

I don't know if this will help to any degree, but when I try wrapping my head around what would have been the same in Richard's time/mind, and what would have been different, I start with the realization that he was a product of medieval philosophy, while we are all products of the eventual evolution of the Age of Reason/Age of Rationalism/Age of Enlightenment.

For Richard, his theology and his God was eminent, at the center of all things. He believed in things that couldn't be proven by his five senses, and that humans/he need special assistance from God in their ordinary thinking and living.

For those of us living in the western world today, nothing is "real" unless it can be proven by the five senses. Science, not God, is everything; nothing has reality or validity until/unless we can prove it's existence or value by the scientific method.

These are stupidly simplistic summaries of two complex systems of thought, and a huge multi-layered cultural and societal chasm lies between them. Richard didn't think as we do, and we can't think like him unless we go back and study medieval philosophy and theology in depth, and then study how it would have informed his life.

When I tried doing that, I soon discovered it was something that would take a lot of research and even more time to contemplate and fully understand what I would learn. Selecting only one topic (example: how would Richard have defined evil and its cause(s)?) led me into a labyrinth I could have wandered in for years.

I concluded that what I really needed was a 15th-century immmersion program, complete with time machine. I keep Googling for same, but the search results to date are most disappointing. I'm left hoping the afterlife allows medieval immersion studies.

~Weds



--- In , ajhibbard@... wrote:
>
> I agree & disagree with what you've just said, & am trying to wrap my head around what would have been the same in Richard's time & what was so very different that we run the risk of mis-judging based on the assumptions we make today about how the world works.
>
> I suppose human biology & psychology haven't changed much, if at all. Ideas (or as my husband who spends a lot of time thinking about artificial intelligence would say) how we mentally model the world around us, & its predictive accuracy, probably have. My own guesstimate is that it takes about 200 years for an idea to move from being radical to being something that few people question.
>
> As I've started playing catch up on recent writing about Richard, it strikes me how very much of what each author writes is interpretation.
>
> A J

Oh, I feel the same way. Thanks to so many recommended books, I am immersing myself in information. But, I keep thinking, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a Master Class over a summer learning about this time, and then combining it with what we know now.
I am even trying to put myself into Cecily's place, and how the idea of "mother" would have been so radically different. Or really any of the family roles.....
So, when I win the lottery I can apportion a part of it to such a class and invite all to join! Now, buy the winning ticket, I tell myself!

On Feb 14, 2013, at 12:19 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



I don't know if this will help to any degree, but when I try wrapping my head around what would have been the same in Richard's time/mind, and what would have been different, I start with the realization that he was a product of medieval philosophy, while we are all products of the eventual evolution of the Age of Reason/Age of Rationalism/Age of Enlightenment.

For Richard, his theology and his God was eminent, at the center of all things. He believed in things that couldn't be proven by his five senses, and that humans/he need special assistance from God in their ordinary thinking and living.

For those of us living in the western world today, nothing is "real" unless it can be proven by the five senses. Science, not God, is everything; nothing has reality or validity until/unless we can prove it's existence or value by the scientific method.

These are stupidly simplistic summaries of two complex systems of thought, and a huge multi-layered cultural and societal chasm lies between them. Richard didn't think as we do, and we can't think like him unless we go back and study medieval philosophy and theology in depth, and then study how it would have informed his life.

When I tried doing that, I soon discovered it was something that would take a lot of research and even more time to contemplate and fully understand what I would learn. Selecting only one topic (example: how would Richard have defined evil and its cause(s)?) led me into a labyrinth I could have wandered in for years.

I concluded that what I really needed was a 15th-century immmersion program, complete with time machine. I keep Googling for same, but the search results to date are most disappointing. I'm left hoping the afterlife allows medieval immersion studies.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, ajhibbard@... wrote:
>
> I agree & disagree with what you've just said, & am trying to wrap my head around what would have been the same in Richard's time & what was so very different that we run the risk of mis-judging based on the assumptions we make today about how the world works.
>
> I suppose human biology & psychology haven't changed much, if at all. Ideas (or as my husband who spends a lot of time thinking about artificial intelligence would say) how we mentally model the world around us, & its predictive accuracy, probably have. My own guesstimate is that it takes about 200 years for an idea to move from being radical to being something that few people question.
>
> As I've started playing catch up on recent writing about Richard, it strikes me how very much of what each author writes is interpretation.
>
> A J