Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

For the most part I concur with what you say. Only fault, there was
never a second crowning. Richard's gift to the north was the Investiture
of his son as Prince of Wales at York Minster.
Only the rumour machine in the south claimed it was a second coronation
which it never was.
Paul

On 13/02/2013 09:36, hjnatdat wrote:
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, sorry about that Paul, you're right. Just had to have that rant. H



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

For the most part I concur with what you say. Only fault, there was
never a second crowning. Richard's gift to the north was the Investiture
of his son as Prince of Wales at York Minster.
Only the rumour machine in the south claimed it was a second coronation
which it never was.
Paul

On 13/02/2013 09:36, hjnatdat wrote:
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.

On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.

A J

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
>
>
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think this is why a forensic pathologist could shed more light. As many have pointed out, he may indeed have had scoliosis and one shoulder higher than the other, but the perception of the severity we're now talking about could/might have been increased by being dumped in an under-sized grave? Only an 'expert' can assess and dismiss that theory and I'm certainly not one. I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.  H. 



________________________________
From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 14:05
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.

A J

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
>
>
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be sifted in case bone fragments were missed.





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of ajhibbard@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.

A J

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
>
>
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Just think of Rod Laver.  If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much (and I mean much) more developed that his right.  It seems far more obvious even than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you can tell at a glance which was his playing arm. 


From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:04
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 
Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be sifted in case bone fragments were missed.

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.

A J

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
>
>
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm the one who was pushing the sex-might-have-been-painful angle, so I suspect
that part was meant for me.

What I was getting at, or trying to, at least, wasn't the idea that he was
already unable, it was that he might have become unable within the next few
years, so speed in finding a new queen would be absolutely key. Since he was
such a dedicated and, as far as we can tell, generally pious Catholic, the
chance of trying out other positions than missionary seems slim, and even if he
generally wasn't in too much pain, that would require particular movements that
might not have been too much fun with the state his lower back was in. So my
hypothesis was based on the idea of eventual worsening, not then-current lack of
ability.





________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 4:36:56 AM
Subject: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the
conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children
has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing
their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as
ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw
deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say
that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or
after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no
mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the
fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second
crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years.
If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings,
banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he
might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show
his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no
longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth.
It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite
another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed
saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause. 


________________________________
From: Megan Lerseth <megan_phntmgrl@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:25
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

I'm the one who was pushing the sex-might-have-been-painful angle, so I suspect
that part was meant for me.

What I was getting at, or trying to, at least, wasn't the idea that he was
already unable, it was that he might have become unable within the next few
years, so speed in finding a new queen would be absolutely key. Since he was
such a dedicated and, as far as we can tell, generally pious Catholic, the
chance of trying out other positions than missionary seems slim, and even if he
generally wasn't in too much pain, that would require particular movements that
might not have been too much fun with the state his lower back was in. So my
hypothesis was based on the idea of eventual worsening, not then-current lack of
ability.

________________________________
From: hjnatdat hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 4:36:56 AM
Subject: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the
conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children
has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing
their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as
ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw
deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say
that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or
after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no
mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the
fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second
crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years.
If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings,
banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he
might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show
his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no
longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth.
It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite
another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed
saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

Hello , very interesting points you make about modern tennis players. I have read somewhere that they have 28% more bone mass than the  average person, so this could also be the same for Richard.
The exercises they had to do were very intense such as  jumping onto their horse fully equipped. This would mean that the person had to be very fit and agile.
 
Loyaulte me Lie
 Christine

Hilary wrote:
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

[snip]

Carol responds:

I agree that these conjectures (which our members do have the right to make, however much they may seem to toe the Tudor line, given the apparent curvature of the spine and the archaeologists' label of "severe scoliosis") ignore the evidence from his own time. I would add that the Great Chronicle of London, written in Tudor times with a pro-Tudor bias and published about seven years after Henry VII died, says nothing whatever about deformity or disability, not so much as a raised shoulder, but it's compiler was in London at the time of Richard's coronation and must have seen him at least once. Also, Rous's description of the raised shoulder is placed amid details (two years in his mother's womb, Scorpio rising sign, etc.) designed to show that he was the anti-Christ (in marked contrast to his earlier depiction while Richard was alive).

As Paul has mentioned, there was no second coronation. It was the investiture of his legitimate son, Edward, a Prince of Wales.

I agree that the evidence of Richard's own time points at most to a minor and barely visible raised shoulder. Vergil, who never saw Richard, echoes Rous (with a few details never seen before, such as a habit of nibbling on his lower lip, which quickly became established "fact"). And we know what happened from there with More and Shakespeare.

It seems clear, as many of us keep saying, that we need additional scientific findings from independent investigators, in particular an upright model of the skeleton. I simply cannot imagine how it's possible that, if Richard was really as misshapen as Jo Appleby's layout of the bones made him out to be (the ribs in particular), no commentator in his lifetime mentioned it, and Rous, writing after his death, limited the deformity or disfigurement (expressed in ambiguous tems, "curtam habiens faciem") to a raised shouldet--not a word about a curved spine or crooked back, yet Rous was expressly presenting him as or comparing him to the anti-Christ. It's even harder to imagine him even walking upright.

We know he fathered three children. We know that his physicians *ordered* him to stay away from his wife's bed, which can only mean that until that time they were still having sexual relations. We know that he was planning a marriage, which could have only one primary purpose, the begetting of heirs (the secondary purpose being an alliance with a European power, either Portugal or Spain. It seems clear that Sasiola, the Spanish ambassador to England whom Richard knighted, reported back no deformity to his sovereigns.) We know, as you said, that rumors were being spread that Richard planned to marry his lovely niece.

I really think that says all that needs to be said about his sex life. He had one and planned to continue having one. The strong, active Richard that we know from the few records we have (as opposed to fanciful embroidery like that we get in Vergil and More) and the deformed Richard apparently revealed by the seemingly severe curvature of his spine are at odds with one another (despite the clear absence of a hunchback or withered arm). Perhaps if scientists and objective historians with a thorough knowledge of the historical record (as opposed to Tudor sources) can work together to arrive at something like the objective truth. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, as McJohn said.

All of Richard's life and for 527 years after his death, he has been plagued by rumors presented as truth. Now he's in danger of something similar happening with conjecture presented as fact, Jo Appleby's statement that Richard may have been up to a foot shorter than his true height and the article identifying "Richard Plantagenet" as Richard III's illegitimate son being just two of many examples. BTW, I forgot to include the URL for that otherwise unobjectionable article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9857232/Richard-III-public-could-pay-respects.html

The full case has not yet been presented. The evidence has not yet been fully analyzed, and if other scientists have questioned the team's conclusions, those questions and alternate hypotheses have not yet been presented. We, who are not forensic scientists or osteopathic surgeons, can only speculate, conjecture, and wait.

I hope that this post doesn't come across as a lecture. It's intended only to express my concern (to be honest, my anxiety) about premature conclusions. And it makes me wonder without really wanting to know just what the Tudorites could be making of the same incompletely analyzed evidence.

Carol

Did the archeological recovery of both the Mary Rose and the Swedish Ship Vasa not recover both longbows and the archers, so one can assume that there is a good deal of comparative muscular analysis already available covering this field?
The idea that a knight was some sort of turtle once immobilized and off his horse, has been proved to be quite inaccurate. At 32 years old and wearing the best and most modern armor I would think that Richard would have been a very formidable adversary and I for one would have been inclined to poke him, at distance with my bill hook or hallibard
Coke, sugars, cigarettes had not come into play so we can assume scoliosis or not he was far from a pushover.
George

By the way I wasn't at all getting at posters here. To my knowledge Jo Appleby is no medical doctor but her statement has rebounded through everything and would seem to continue so to do. To echo others, we really do need proper forensic pathology analysis.  That at least would let us know more certainly one way or the other.   



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 16:05
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Hilary wrote:
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

[snip]

Carol responds:

I agree that these conjectures (which our members do have the right to make, however much they may seem to toe the Tudor line, given the apparent curvature of the spine and the archaeologists' label of "severe scoliosis") ignore the evidence from his own time. I would add that the Great Chronicle of London, written in Tudor times with a pro-Tudor bias and published about seven years after Henry VII died, says nothing whatever about deformity or disability, not so much as a raised shoulder, but it's compiler was in London at the time of Richard's coronation and must have seen him at least once. Also, Rous's description of the raised shoulder is placed amid details (two years in his mother's womb, Scorpio rising sign, etc.) designed to show that he was the anti-Christ (in marked contrast to his earlier depiction while Richard was alive).

As Paul has mentioned, there was no second coronation. It was the investiture of his legitimate son, Edward, a Prince of Wales.

I agree that the evidence of Richard's own time points at most to a minor and barely visible raised shoulder. Vergil, who never saw Richard, echoes Rous (with a few details never seen before, such as a habit of nibbling on his lower lip, which quickly became established "fact"). And we know what happened from there with More and Shakespeare.

It seems clear, as many of us keep saying, that we need additional scientific findings from independent investigators, in particular an upright model of the skeleton. I simply cannot imagine how it's possible that, if Richard was really as misshapen as Jo Appleby's layout of the bones made him out to be (the ribs in particular), no commentator in his lifetime mentioned it, and Rous, writing after his death, limited the deformity or disfigurement (expressed in ambiguous tems, "curtam habiens faciem") to a raised shouldet--not a word about a curved spine or crooked back, yet Rous was expressly presenting him as or comparing him to the anti-Christ. It's even harder to imagine him even walking upright.

We know he fathered three children. We know that his physicians *ordered* him to stay away from his wife's bed, which can only mean that until that time they were still having sexual relations. We know that he was planning a marriage, which could have only one primary purpose, the begetting of heirs (the secondary purpose being an alliance with a European power, either Portugal or Spain. It seems clear that Sasiola, the Spanish ambassador to England whom Richard knighted, reported back no deformity to his sovereigns.) We know, as you said, that rumors were being spread that Richard planned to marry his lovely niece.

I really think that says all that needs to be said about his sex life. He had one and planned to continue having one. The strong, active Richard that we know from the few records we have (as opposed to fanciful embroidery like that we get in Vergil and More) and the deformed Richard apparently revealed by the seemingly severe curvature of his spine are at odds with one another (despite the clear absence of a hunchback or withered arm). Perhaps if scientists and objective historians with a thorough knowledge of the historical record (as opposed to Tudor sources) can work together to arrive at something like the objective truth. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, as McJohn said.

All of Richard's life and for 527 years after his death, he has been plagued by rumors presented as truth. Now he's in danger of something similar happening with conjecture presented as fact, Jo Appleby's statement that Richard may have been up to a foot shorter than his true height and the article identifying "Richard Plantagenet" as Richard III's illegitimate son being just two of many examples. BTW, I forgot to include the URL for that otherwise unobjectionable article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9857232/Richard-III-public-could-pay-respects.html

The full case has not yet been presented. The evidence has not yet been fully analyzed, and if other scientists have questioned the team's conclusions, those questions and alternate hypotheses have not yet been presented. We, who are not forensic scientists or osteopathic surgeons, can only speculate, conjecture, and wait.

I hope that this post doesn't come across as a lecture. It's intended only to express my concern (to be honest, my anxiety) about premature conclusions. And it makes me wonder without really wanting to know just what the Tudorites could be making of the same incompletely analyzed evidence.

Carol

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> For the most part I concur with what you say. Only fault, there was
> never a second crowning. Richard's gift to the north was the Investiture of his son as Prince of Wales at York Minster.
> Only the rumour machine in the south claimed it was a second coronation which it never was.

Carol responds:

The Croyland Chronicler, IIRC, which shows that he wasn't as reliable as many historians seem to think. If I'm mistaken, I'm sure that someone will correct me.

Carol

These days it is certainly true that great care is taken not to overtrain, or inappropriately train, children in athletic pursuits or ballet bevause it can cause permanent damage.
Marie

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be sifted in case bone fragments were missed.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of ajhibbard@...
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
>
> Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).
>
> She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.
>
> She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).
>
> She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).
>
> And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.
>
> A J
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
> >
> > Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
> >
> > 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
> >
> > 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
> >
> > 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
> >
> > 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
> >
> > 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
> >
> > I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
> >
> > H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I think you're right about the advisability of seeking analysis from experts in other fields.

The fact that some of Richard's individual vertebrae were mis-shapen supports in my mind the idea that he did have some scoliosis. However, as has been mentioned in several venues, people with lesser degrees can live normal lives & be excellent athletes.

Beyond that, the degree of curvature in the photos appears to be inconsistent with what we think we know about the life he lived. Some of that, I think, has to be an artifact of the way the bones are laid out for display. It strikes me that it would have been difficult for someone whose head was so very much off midline to have been an effective horseman. So I have to think that even with some curvature, as a living person, a lot of compensation was possible, & what might have been visible dependent on position. After all, Kendall wrote that during the coronation, "Divested of their robes, [Richard and Anne], stood naked to the waist to be anointed with the sacred chrism."

And, if, as several people have said, muscle action determines to some degree the position of bones, is some of the extreme curvature now seen the result of muscle spasm pre-mortem or rigor mortis post-mortem?

A J

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think this is why a forensic pathologist could shed more light. As many have pointed out, he may indeed have had scoliosis and one shoulder higher than the other, but the perception of the severity we're now talking about could/might have been increased by being dumped in an under-sized grave? Only an 'expert' can assess and dismiss that theory and I'm certainly not one. I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.  H. 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@..."
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 14:05
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>  
>
> Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).
>
> She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.
>
> She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).
>
> She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).
>
> And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.
>
> A J
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
> >
> > Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
> >
> > 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
> >
> > 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
> >
> > 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
> >
> > 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
> >
> > 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
> >
> > I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
> >
> > H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

At risk of incurring a lot of ire here, is there any chance that this might also
add to the- ugh- withered arm theory, but to a significantly (please bear with
me here) lesser extent? Obviously there was no noticeable abnormality in the
bones of his left arm, so it wouldn't've been a congenital deformity, but that
does leave an opening for nerve damage (I think Penman suggested something like
that in The Sunne in Splendour, attributing it to a battle injury).

The only reason I'm even considering this is the fact that I have reduced
ability in my left arm thanks to nerve damage myself- I was a premature birth by
about a month, and from what I understand it was a combination of my
underdevelopment at the time and the way they pulled me out, but something got a
little damaged along the way. There's no pain or numbness, it looks perfectly
normal, and it's not really disabled, just lacking in fine motor control and the
hand tends to have a more curled-up relaxed shape than my right. But even this
little bit of damage has made me heavily favor my right arm and hand, to the
point where, yes, my right shoulder looks a little higher at first glance
because the muscles between my shoulder and neck are more developed. I imagine
if I had scoliosis on top of it, the effect would be considerably exaggerated.
With how the rumor mill seems to have gradually blown up every aspect of
Richard's physicality into something the Elizabethans considered grotesque,
slightly-less-able-but-still-functional left hand -> atrophied paralyzed left
arm doesn't seem like too much of a leap.





________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 10:20:12 AM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


Just think of Rod Laver. If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much
(and I mean much) more developed that his right. It seems far more obvious even
than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you
can tell at a glance which was his playing arm.


From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: ""
>

Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:04
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a
tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would
show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those
tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study
of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be
sifted in case bone fragments were missed.

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands
a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does
work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20
years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described
as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in
his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline
Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data
based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted")
was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the
shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago,
that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to
the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the
one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I
work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall
athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises
began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't
stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this
sort of exercise.

A J

One of my all time favorites!

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 13, 2013, at 9:20 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Just think of Rod Laver. If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much (and I mean much) more developed that his right. It seems far more obvious even than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you can tell at a glance which was his playing arm.

From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:04
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be sifted in case bone fragments were missed.

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.

A J

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
>
>
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>
> Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
>
> 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
>
> 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
>
> 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
>
> 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
>
> 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
>
> I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
>
> H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
Marie

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> At risk of incurring a lot of ire here, is there any chance that this might also
> add to the- ugh- withered arm theory, but to a significantly (please bear with
> me here) lesser extent? Obviously there was no noticeable abnormality in the
> bones of his left arm, so it wouldn't've been a congenital deformity, but that
> does leave an opening for nerve damage (I think Penman suggested something like
> that in The Sunne in Splendour, attributing it to a battle injury).
>
> The only reason I'm even considering this is the fact that I have reduced
> ability in my left arm thanks to nerve damage myself- I was a premature birth by
> about a month, and from what I understand it was a combination of my
> underdevelopment at the time and the way they pulled me out, but something got a
> little damaged along the way. There's no pain or numbness, it looks perfectly
> normal, and it's not really disabled, just lacking in fine motor control and the
> hand tends to have a more curled-up relaxed shape than my right. But even this
> little bit of damage has made me heavily favor my right arm and hand, to the
> point where, yes, my right shoulder looks a little higher at first glance
> because the muscles between my shoulder and neck are more developed. I imagine
> if I had scoliosis on top of it, the effect would be considerably exaggerated.
> With how the rumor mill seems to have gradually blown up every aspect of
> Richard's physicality into something the Elizabethans considered grotesque,
> slightly-less-able-but-still-functional left hand -> atrophied paralyzed left
> arm doesn't seem like too much of a leap.
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
> To: ""
>
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 10:20:12 AM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> Just think of Rod Laver. If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much
> (and I mean much) more developed that his right. It seems far more obvious even
> than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you
> can tell at a glance which was his playing arm.
>
>
> From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
> To: ""
> >
>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:04
> Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a
> tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would
> show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those
> tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study
> of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be
> sifted in case bone fragments were missed.
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands
> a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does
> work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20
> years or so).
>
> She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described
> as living.
>
> She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in
> his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline
> Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data
> based on averages from a large group of people).
>
> She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted")
> was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).
>
> And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the
> shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago,
> that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to
> the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the
> one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I
> work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall
> athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises
> began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't
> stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this
> sort of exercise.
>
> A J
>
>
>

I took ballet almost all of my life, starting young. I now have a new right hip to prove it.... And the left one is on the " watch and wait" list.

On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



These days it is certainly true that great care is taken not to overtrain, or inappropriately train, children in athletic pursuits or ballet bevause it can cause permanent damage.
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be sifted in case bone fragments were missed.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of ajhibbard@...
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
>
> Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20 years or so).
>
> She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described as living.
>
> She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data based on averages from a large group of people).
>
> She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted") was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).
>
> And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago, that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this sort of exercise.
>
> A J
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Those are excellent points. I posted an article yesterday about Joseph Pilates who used exercise to gain strength and agility. We must also keep in mind that Richard was ONLY 32 at the time of his death. Has he lived and his life became more sedentary, and time took its toll, he may well have been in great pain and had limited mobility. But I agree, I think he was able to do quite a lot, and probably made himself do a lot more. His Kingdom and his very life were at stake. He could have worked through a lot of pain to continue his activities.
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:36 AM, "hjnatdat" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
> >
> > Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:
> >
> > 1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.
> >
> > 2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?
> >
> > 3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?
> >
> > 4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.
> >
> > 5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.
> >
> > I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.
> >
> > H.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

So yet another reason for a comprehensive analysis of the remains, and a model of what his body might have looked like.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:59 AM, "Megan Lerseth" <megan_phntmgrl@...<mailto:megan_phntmgrl@...>> wrote:



At risk of incurring a lot of ire here, is there any chance that this might also
add to the- ugh- withered arm theory, but to a significantly (please bear with
me here) lesser extent? Obviously there was no noticeable abnormality in the
bones of his left arm, so it wouldn't've been a congenital deformity, but that
does leave an opening for nerve damage (I think Penman suggested something like
that in The Sunne in Splendour, attributing it to a battle injury).

The only reason I'm even considering this is the fact that I have reduced
ability in my left arm thanks to nerve damage myself- I was a premature birth by
about a month, and from what I understand it was a combination of my
underdevelopment at the time and the way they pulled me out, but something got a
little damaged along the way. There's no pain or numbness, it looks perfectly
normal, and it's not really disabled, just lacking in fine motor control and the
hand tends to have a more curled-up relaxed shape than my right. But even this
little bit of damage has made me heavily favor my right arm and hand, to the
point where, yes, my right shoulder looks a little higher at first glance
because the muscles between my shoulder and neck are more developed. I imagine
if I had scoliosis on top of it, the effect would be considerably exaggerated.
With how the rumor mill seems to have gradually blown up every aspect of
Richard's physicality into something the Elizabethans considered grotesque,
slightly-less-able-but-still-functional left hand -> atrophied paralyzed left
arm doesn't seem like too much of a leap.

________________________________
From: liz williams ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 10:20:12 AM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

Just think of Rod Laver. If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much
(and I mean much) more developed that his right. It seems far more obvious even
than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you
can tell at a glance which was his playing arm.

From: Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>"
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>

Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 15:04
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

Absolutely, exercise affects the musculature, and if you have ever watched a
tennis player, look at the dominant arm, much more muscle, and the bones would
show more wear, and more slight changes due to the continued pulling of those
tendons which keep everything attached. A really thorough and meticulous study
of the body definitely need to be done. And probably a wider area should be
sifted in case bone fragments were missed.

From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of
mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com<http://40gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:05 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

Comments from the body worker I see (she does deep tissue work, but understands
a variety of other approaches to helping people maintain function; she also does
work on at least two people with severe scoliosis who have been clients for 20
years or so).

She finds it quite remarkable that Richard could live the life he is described
as living.

She expected to see the scoliosis reflected in some more striking asymmetry in
his face (which then makes me wonder if despite the expertise of Caroline
Wilkinson's work, we do wind up missing some subtleties when relying on data
based on averages from a large group of people).

She also believes that being his mother's 11th baby (calling Cicely "depleted")
was a contributing factor & wondered if Richard didn't have osteoporosis).

And finally she pointed out that the muscles are what made the spine take the
shape it had. The last comment reminds me of what Kendall proposed years ago,
that the constant exercise for the practice of battle may have contributed to
the unequal height of Richard's shoulders. I, in turn, wonder if the
one-sidedness of much of that exercise wasn't a significant factor (after all, I
work my horses in exercises in both directions to try to develop their overall
athletic abilities). Not to mention the early age at which these exercises
began. I also can't help wondering if Richard's light frame simply couldn't
stand up as well as a larger boned person's to the particular stresses of this
sort of exercise.

A J

Well said!
Vickie

From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:36 AM
Subject: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 
There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

Well, on the most basic level, my left arm is a bit smaller than my right (if I
do the standard bicep-display flexion, you can barely see anything show up on my
left arm, but it's very noticeable on my right), and I'm not particularly
athletic. That's just from carrying my laptop bag and small children. I'd think
that someone with a similar condition but considerably more athletic prowess-
and probably more visible musculature to start with, as he was a small-framed,
thin man and I'm a large-framed woman carrying about twenty extra pounds than
are necessary- would already look a bit more unevenly distributed.

Like I said, I'm not really disabled in that arm- I can pick up most items the
size of about a pack of cards in one go with it (smaller objects take a couple
of tries, usually, because of the need for finer direction of the fingers), but
I struggle a little with things like proper typing because of the little, almost
twitchlike movements that are necessary for that. I type with primarily my right
hand, and only using my left for the keys at the far left of the keyboard and to
do things like tapping the shift key to capitalize letters. I can still grip
with it, though- it's no trouble to use my left arm to carry heavy bags or
anything, so if Richard's condition was anything like mine, he could probably
still hold into and steer his horse with his left hand while using his right to
wield his axe.




________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:07:49 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left
arm, do you think?
Marie

Hilary, I am sorry you feel like we are moving into the realm of H7 society. Talking about his condition and trying to find out how or if he suffered does not make anyone a proponent of hunchback theory. Seriously. I am feeling completely at loss now. If we have to be afraid to ask questions, there is no point in being here. A very frustrated and bewildered Ishita


________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:36 AM
Subject: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 
There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

I think we may need to define clearly what knowledge a pathologist, an anthropologist, and a surgeon can bring to matters regarding Richard.

A forensic *pathologist* is only concerned with determining the cause of death by examination of a corpse. Leicester actually had one of those in the documentary; he appears in the scene discussing the specific wounds Richard received.

A forensic *anthropologist* is the expert needed to answer the questions about the state and position of Richard's body before, during, and after it was dumped in the grave. These questions include how it decomposed based on the position it was dumped in. From Wikipedia: "Forensic anthropological techniques can be used in the recovery and analysis of human remains. A forensic analysis assesses the age, sex , stature, ancestry, and evidence for an estimate of the predominant geographical ancestry of the individual, as well as determine if the individual was affected by accidental or violent trauma or disease prior to or at the time of death. Forensic anthropologists frequently work in conjunction with forensic pathologists, odontologists, and homicide investigators to identify a decedent, discover evidence of trauma, and determine the postmortem interval. [They] typically lack the legal authority to declare the official cause of death, which is the job of forensic pathologists."

To analyze Richard's spine and hips in regard to scoliosis, they need the forensic anthropologist to work in conjunction with an *orthopedic surgeon*. The surgeon is qualified to analyze the effect of the scoliosis on Richard's body and life when he was alive, while the anthropologist is qualified to analyze how the body's position in the grave created the in situ position of the vertebrae (up to and including whether vibration of earth-moving and tarmac-creating/ earth compaction equipment may have affected the position of the bones 500 years after they were buried).

Like Richard's life, the final analysis is complicated and doesn't come down to only one expert having the definitive, final word.

~Weds


--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think this is why a forensic pathologist could shed more light. As many have pointed out, he may indeed have had scoliosis and one shoulder higher than the other, but the perception of the severity we're now talking about could/might have been increased by being dumped in an under-sized grave? Only an 'expert' can assess and dismiss that theory and I'm certainly not one. I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.  H. 

Below is the link to a Battle of Towton documentary, where they analyze bones in the mass grave found there. A number of the skeletons had thicker bone on the left arm than on the right, which made them hypothesize these particular victims of the battle were archers.

They hired an archer (from Yorkshire, if I remember correctly) longbow archer and scanned his arm to compare it with the skeletons'. The results supported their theory. So if they did the same sort of analysis on Richard's skeleton related to his weapons training, preference and experience, that might also support a related theory.

Below is the link to part one. You'll have to chase down the other parts as I'm running short on time.

http://youtu.be/hAQoIeYAHPg

~Weds



--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> Just think of Rod Laver.  If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much (and I mean much) more developed that his right.  It seems far more obvious even than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you can tell at a glance which was his playing arm. 

Weds good answer!

I know only true truly, that if you ask two doctors one question then you will get three answers, this factor only goes up exponionally with the number of doctors in a room. So it is with determining the factors governing R3 life and this will probably continue indefinitely . Sadly we cannot ask R3 until we develop time travel and the rest will be conjecture.
George
On Feb 13, 2013, at 12:48 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> I think we may need to define clearly what knowledge a pathologist, an anthropologist, and a surgeon can bring to matters regarding Richard.
>
> A forensic *pathologist* is only concerned with determining the cause of death by examination of a corpse. Leicester actually had one of those in the documentary; he appears in the scene discussing the specific wounds Richard received.
>
> A forensic *anthropologist* is the expert needed to answer the questions about the state and position of Richard's body before, during, and after it was dumped in the grave. These questions include how it decomposed based on the position it was dumped in. From Wikipedia: "Forensic anthropological techniques can be used in the recovery and analysis of human remains. A forensic analysis assesses the age, sex , stature, ancestry, and evidence for an estimate of the predominant geographical ancestry of the individual, as well as determine if the individual was affected by accidental or violent trauma or disease prior to or at the time of death. Forensic anthropologists frequently work in conjunction with forensic pathologists, odontologists, and homicide investigators to identify a decedent, discover evidence of trauma, and determine the postmortem interval. [They] typically lack the legal authority to declare the official cause of death, which is the job of forensic pathologists."
>
> To analyze Richard's spine and hips in regard to scoliosis, they need the forensic anthropologist to work in conjunction with an *orthopedic surgeon*. The surgeon is qualified to analyze the effect of the scoliosis on Richard's body and life when he was alive, while the anthropologist is qualified to analyze how the body's position in the grave created the in situ position of the vertebrae (up to and including whether vibration of earth-moving and tarmac-creating/ earth compaction equipment may have affected the position of the bones 500 years after they were buried).
>
> Like Richard's life, the final analysis is complicated and doesn't come down to only one expert having the definitive, final word.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I think this is why a forensic pathologist could shed more light. As many have pointed out, he may indeed have had scoliosis and one shoulder higher than the other, but the perception of the severity we're now talking about could/might have been increased by being dumped in an under-sized grave? Only an 'expert' can assess and dismiss that theory and I'm certainly not one. I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.ý ý H.ý
>
>

Pamela Tudor-Craig made mention that *if* Richard had any visible disability it would never have been mentioned during his lifetime. But *once he was dead* it would have been open season on him.

That the rumors didn't start until decades after he was gone...to me, his enemies' silence makes the argument that he had no visible disability until someone invented it/them.

~Weds



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause. 

I wasn't saying that at all as I think you'll understand that from the other posts. I was saying that Jo Appleby's throw away hunchback remark was making us spend ages hypothesising how handicapped Richard really was when some of that hypothesis conflicts with accounts from his contemporaries. Therefore, the H7 camp, for want of a better word would be rejoicing we're embracing the hunchback route.
I think what we concluded is that there needs to be a fuller scientific analysis of the remains - but who knows when.
It was nothing to do with the value of any posts on here and you have no need to be afraid to ask anything. As you can see there's a good debate going on about how he lost his helmet.
I do apologise that you seem to have taken this in the way you have - I can assure you it was nothing personal to anyone   H.    


________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 17:37
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

Hilary, I am sorry you feel like we are moving into the realm of H7 society. Talking about his condition and trying to find out how or if he suffered does not make anyone a proponent of hunchback theory. Seriously. I am feeling completely at loss now. If we have to be afraid to ask questions, there is no point in being here. A very frustrated and bewildered Ishita

________________________________
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 4:36 AM
Subject: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 
There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.

Can we just stand back for a moment and ask the following questions:

1. If Richard was outwardly 'deformed' why did none of the rebels use this as ammunition? One of them was a Bishop and we know that the medieval Church saw deformity as the sign of a twisted mind. They had the perfect ammunition to say that his reign would curse England - but they didn't, not even Tudor before or after.

2. When the Elizabeth of York rumour machine was in full flow why was there no mention of a beautiful girl being chased by a deformed uncle? Surely the fifteenth century tabloids would have loved the 'Beauty and the Beast' element?

3. After his coronation Richard set out on a gruelling Progress and second crowning. We know his predecessor had seldom set foot out of London for years. If R was in pain, why did he put himself through all those receptions, hearings, banquets etc when he could have easily summoned them all to London? Yes, he might want to show himself to his people; but he wouldn't have wanted to show his tired, painful, irritable self would he?

4. Why the rush to find a new queen if he and his Council knew he could no longer have children. Queens had one purpoose and it wasn't romance.

5. And finally, Richard loved hunting and was hunting weeks before Bosworth. It's one thing to put yourself through pain for the good of the country, quite another for recreational purposes.

I rest my case. No doubt you can all think of more, but I just felt it needed saying or we might as well migrate to the H7 Society.

H.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
>[snip] I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.

Carol responds:

Excellent point regarding Colyngbourne and his bit of doggerel (which, I hope everyone knows was not the cause of his horrible death for treason). The worst he could come up with was some bad puns on names and badges that made Richard and his three best-known supporters sound like a domestic menagerie. If he could have brought in a crooked back or any visible deformity, he would have done so.

BTW, according to Charles Ross (a moderate traditionalist who does at least try to be objective), the earliest Tudor chronicles (Great Chronicle, London Chronicle, and Vitellius) make no mention of any deformity. If Rous hadn't mentioned the raised shoulder, followed and exaggerated by Vergil (and More, whose work was not even intended for publication), the only basis for the myth would be the stray crookback remark in York after Richard's death. Shakespeare would have had to emphasize his supposed villainy without the mountain on his back, and most people would never have heard of Richard. I can just imagine the archaeologists saying, "This skeleton can't be Richard's. It has a crooked back."

Carol

Megan Lerseth wrote:

>[snip] Since he was such a dedicated and, as far as we can tell, generally pious Catholic, the chance of trying out other positions than missionary seems slim, [snip]

Carol responds:

I'll readily grant the piety, which appears to be quite genuine, but I really think that associating the missionary position advocated by missionaries in the (Protestant) nineteenth century with the fifteenth is a mistake. Sure, a presumably celibate pope issued some guidelines in an earlier century, but would the sometimes bawdy English have listened to them? I seriously doubt it. The Croyland Chronicler even criticized Richard for celebrating the Christmas season with feasts and dancing. (I imagine there were other revelries as well; Edward had a court jester, so Richard probably did as well.)

Richard certainly seemed to practice and advocate clean living, which would mean, among other things, no adultery (fornication before marriage being only a venal sin since it didn't involve violation of marriage vows), but I doubt that he or any other man of his time would have let a priest (or the faraway Pope) dictate his sexual positions. Pious Joanna, had he married her, might have been another matter, but even she had not heard that a woman should lie on her back with closed eyes and think of England.

Joy and sexuality were still very prevalent in England in Shakespeare's time. It's only the Puritans who, finding Catholicism and even Anglicanism too full of pagan elements, tried to suppress all joy in life, from the the theater to Christmas. I've never heard them advocating a particular position. I suspect it was a taboo topic. It was only when the Stuarts were reinstated under the secretly Catholic Charles II that joy and sexuality returned to England.

Setting aside Richard, would a man like Edward IV who openly kept mistresses, listen to any priest or pope regarding sexual positions?
I really doubt that he, or any other Englishman of the time, placed any such restrictions on himself.

Side note: Remarks by historians (even Kendall) labeling Richard as anachronistically "puritanical" or "prudish" are, I think, short of the mark. He apparently enjoyed celebrations and pageantry (Christmas, his splendid coronation, Corpus Christi plays) and fancy clothing (see the descriptions of his gowns on ceremonial occasions) and he loved music. It was only adultery and similar sins that he clearly disapproved of.

Carol

You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."

The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?

I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."

I think it depends on what problems the knight is having with his left arm. If the horse is trained for the specific rider, maybe his training could get round it. But I don't think it would be easy to overcome. For a performance in the dressage ring, yes. To perform in battle, no. There's just no time for a knight to apply finicky, subtle aids to communicate with his horse during a battle.

~Weds


--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause.

Carol responds:

I certainly agree that Morton would have used it against him, but I can't tell whether "intelligence and piety" is meant to be taken at face value or ironically. Intelligence I'll grant. He was far too shrewd and clever for Richard's good, and it was most unfortunate that Richard gave him into Buckingham's custody. But piety? Morton was a professional politician who used the clergy as a stepping stone onto king's councils (and no doubt appreciated the benefit of clergy, which kept him from being executed on more than one occasion. He was, as some chronicler wrote, a veteran intriguer who had probably been working behind the scenes creating animosities among Edward's followers long before Edward died. Can you tell me where you got the idea that he was pious? Priesthood was largely a profession for younger sons, not a calling in the sense that someone felt called by God to become one, in the fifteenth century. (Had he been that sort of man, he probably would have spent his life in a monastery.)

But, yes, he of all people would have taken advantage of the association of evil with deformity, but unless he had a hand in More's "History," which seems to be based on other sources, including rumor, in combination with his own imagination, he (Morton) never did so, certainly not publicly in his own lifetime.

Carol  

Interesting post Wednesday...Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."
>
> The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?
>
> I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."
>
> I think it depends on what problems the knight is having with his left arm. If the horse is trained for the specific rider, maybe his training could get round it. But I don't think it would be easy to overcome. For a performance in the dressage ring, yes. To perform in battle, no. There's just no time for a knight to apply finicky, subtle aids to communicate with his horse during a battle.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> > Marie
>

My God, that was fascinating and awful. I noticed that the ribs looked eerily similar to Richards, and maybe a spine slightly bent here and there. The suggestion to a hasty burial in a small space....... Just asking, once again?





From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:59 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Below is the link to a Battle of Towton documentary, where they analyze bones in the mass grave found there. A number of the skeletons had thicker bone on the left arm than on the right, which made them hypothesize these particular victims of the battle were archers.

They hired an archer (from Yorkshire, if I remember correctly) longbow archer and scanned his arm to compare it with the skeletons'. The results supported their theory. So if they did the same sort of analysis on Richard's skeleton related to his weapons training, preference and experience, that might also support a related theory.

Below is the link to part one. You'll have to chase down the other parts as I'm running short on time.

http://youtu.be/hAQoIeYAHPg

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Just think of Rod Laver. If you look at photos of him, his left arm is much (and I mean much) more developed that his right. It seems far more obvious even than with modern players, maybe because the racquets are different now but you can tell at a glance which was his playing arm.Â

Until this past week I had never considered all the different types of "experts" we need in this mystery. We need historians, religious folks, people who are expert in horses, archery, armor, Medieval life on all levels of society, anatomists, forensic scientists, surveyors, and on and on. This could keep a lot of us reading and discussing for many years to come. Which is yet another reason, I hope the Queen, or whomever needs to make the call, says yes to exploration of documents, bones, and all the other secrets, we need to know!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of wednesday_mc
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:04 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."

The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?

I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."

I think it depends on what problems the knight is having with his left arm. If the horse is trained for the specific rider, maybe his training could get round it. But I don't think it would be easy to overcome. For a performance in the dressage ring, yes. To perform in battle, no. There's just no time for a knight to apply finicky, subtle aids to communicate with his horse during a battle.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> Marie

Always found Pamela Tudor-Craig's comment faintly ludicrous. A clue is
in her name perhaps? :-)
With the famous doggerel of Collyngebourne as an example of what enemies
said during Richard's lifetime, had there been a visible deformity it
would have been open season on him then. Look at all the rumours spread
by Margaret Beaufort and her friends during Richard's reign. Of course
something would have been said!
Paul


On 13/02/2013 18:03, wednesday_mc wrote:
> Pamela Tudor-Craig made mention that *if* Richard had any visible disability it would never have been mentioned during his lifetime. But *once he was dead* it would have been open season on him.
>
> That the rumors didn't start until decades after he was gone...to me, his enemies' silence makes the argument that he had no visible disability until someone invented it/them.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause.Â
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is totally out of the window.


--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Well, on the most basic level, my left arm is a bit smaller than my right (if I
> do the standard bicep-display flexion, you can barely see anything show up on my
> left arm, but it's very noticeable on my right), and I'm not particularly
> athletic. That's just from carrying my laptop bag and small children. I'd think
> that someone with a similar condition but considerably more athletic prowess-
> and probably more visible musculature to start with, as he was a small-framed,
> thin man and I'm a large-framed woman carrying about twenty extra pounds than
> are necessary- would already look a bit more unevenly distributed.
>
> Like I said, I'm not really disabled in that arm- I can pick up most items the
> size of about a pack of cards in one go with it (smaller objects take a couple
> of tries, usually, because of the need for finer direction of the fingers), but
> I struggle a little with things like proper typing because of the little, almost
> twitchlike movements that are necessary for that. I type with primarily my right
> hand, and only using my left for the keys at the far left of the keyboard and to
> do things like tapping the shift key to capitalize letters. I can still grip
> with it, though- it's no trouble to use my left arm to carry heavy bags or
> anything, so if Richard's condition was anything like mine, he could probably
> still hold into and steer his horse with his left hand while using his right to
> wield his axe.
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:07:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left
> arm, do you think?
> Marie
>
>
>

That's true, but foreign reporters didn't have to censor themselves, and we have no such claims from Von Poppelau, from Commines (who also saw him, and comments on Edward IV's appearance), or from any Burgundian writer who might have seen him in exile. It does suggest to me that there was nothing remarkable about his appearance clothed.
Marie

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> Pamela Tudor-Craig made mention that *if* Richard had any visible disability it would never have been mentioned during his lifetime. But *once he was dead* it would have been open season on him.
>
> That the rumors didn't start until decades after he was gone...to me, his enemies' silence makes the argument that he had no visible disability until someone invented it/them.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause. 
>

Ive often wondered if the birth of that poxy lie evolved from something Richard uttered at the council meeting...something on the lines of 'my hands are tied'...something to describe how he felt about the situation he had been cast into...Eileen

--- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is totally out of the window.
>
>
> --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > Well, on the most basic level, my left arm is a bit smaller than my right (if I
> > do the standard bicep-display flexion, you can barely see anything show up on my
> > left arm, but it's very noticeable on my right), and I'm not particularly
> > athletic. That's just from carrying my laptop bag and small children. I'd think
> > that someone with a similar condition but considerably more athletic prowess-
> > and probably more visible musculature to start with, as he was a small-framed,
> > thin man and I'm a large-framed woman carrying about twenty extra pounds than
> > are necessary- would already look a bit more unevenly distributed.
> >
> > Like I said, I'm not really disabled in that arm- I can pick up most items the
> > size of about a pack of cards in one go with it (smaller objects take a couple
> > of tries, usually, because of the need for finer direction of the fingers), but
> > I struggle a little with things like proper typing because of the little, almost
> > twitchlike movements that are necessary for that. I type with primarily my right
> > hand, and only using my left for the keys at the far left of the keyboard and to
> > do things like tapping the shift key to capitalize letters. I can still grip
> > with it, though- it's no trouble to use my left arm to carry heavy bags or
> > anything, so if Richard's condition was anything like mine, he could probably
> > still hold into and steer his horse with his left hand while using his right to
> > wield his axe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:07:49 PM
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left
> > arm, do you think?
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
>

Hi, I'm a bit of a lurker on here, so apologies for the intrusion, but as an experienced horserider I have to disagree with this, these horses were finely tuned and very well trained battle animals, they were worth a small fortune and would have been adept at reading extremely subtle forms of communication and have known their craft well. In fact it only takes a tiny shift in weight of the seat or a turn of the riders head or a minimal change in arm position in order to communicate. With a well trained horse you only have to 'think' a movement and it can happen, plus a well trained horse will automatically position itself correctly - probably the closest modern example of this is with the Lusitano or Andalucian bullfighting horses or well trained roping horses.
The top level Polo ponies are also trained to 'auto pilot' and continue on a given course at a specific speed until told otherwise.
The warhorse of this time would have been a formidable creature, by no means foolproof - they way to win was to bring the horses down, as of course demonstrated time and time again by our archers in the 100 years war

V x

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."
>
> The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?
>
> I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."
>
> I think it depends on what problems the knight is having with his left arm. If the horse is trained for the specific rider, maybe his training could get round it. But I don't think it would be easy to overcome. For a performance in the dressage ring, yes. To perform in battle, no. There's just no time for a knight to apply finicky, subtle aids to communicate with his horse during a battle.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> > Marie
>

My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just a
slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is compensating
(apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right hand
had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that Richard's
left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any damage
to it.

I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with the
withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from one
another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this, but
here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.

I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that
might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might
have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and
doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been
told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly
developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
totally out of the window.

Very interesting, and amazing phenomena. And you are just lovely. Nice to see your face!

On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Megan Lerseth" <megan_phntmgrl@...<mailto:megan_phntmgrl@...>> wrote:



My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just a
slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is compensating
(apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right hand
had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that Richard's
left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any damage
to it.

I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with the
withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from one
another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this, but
here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.

I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that
might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might
have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.

________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and
doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been
told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly
developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
totally out of the window.

Paul,
Even as a joke this is unfair. Pamela Tudor-Craig (nee Pamela Wynne Reeves) is the person responsible for dating the portraits, identifying the later alterations and organising the 1973 National Portrait Gallery exhibition on Richard III.
I can tell you something of the origins of the tudor-Craigs, the family of her first husband, if you would like - I ran into them right at the start of my family history research (no, I'm not related).
Marie

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Always found Pamela Tudor-Craig's comment faintly ludicrous. A clue is
> in her name perhaps? :-)
> With the famous doggerel of Collyngebourne as an example of what enemies
> said during Richard's lifetime, had there been a visible deformity it
> would have been open season on him then. Look at all the rumours spread
> by Margaret Beaufort and her friends during Richard's reign. Of course
> something would have been said!
> Paul
>
>
> On 13/02/2013 18:03, wednesday_mc wrote:
> > Pamela Tudor-Craig made mention that *if* Richard had any visible disability it would never have been mentioned during his lifetime. But *once he was dead* it would have been open season on him.
> >
> > That the rumors didn't start until decades after he was gone...to me, his enemies' silence makes the argument that he had no visible disability until someone invented it/them.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >> Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Thanks for that Megan.....It makes you think....something like this, a small detail..totally blown out of proportion..Eileen
--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Very interesting, and amazing phenomena. And you are just lovely. Nice to see your face!
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Megan Lerseth" > wrote:
>
>
>
> My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
> press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just a
> slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is compensating
> (apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
> already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right hand
> had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that Richard's
> left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any damage
> to it.
>
> I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with the
> withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from one
> another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
> there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
> rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
> lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this, but
> here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.
>
> I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that
> might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might
> have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
> memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] >
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and
> doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been
> told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly
> developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
> totally out of the window.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Okay, you want to know what my view is? More's account is too late to be reliable, and in so many respects isn't worth the paper it's written on; also, his scene relies on Richard pulling up his sleeve to show people how abnormal his arm is. It's fantasy.
Marie

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
> press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just a
> slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is compensating
> (apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
> already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right hand
> had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that Richard's
> left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any damage
> to it.
>
> I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with the
> withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from one
> another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
> there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
> rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
> lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this, but
> here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
> http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.
>
> I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that
> might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might
> have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
> memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and
> doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been
> told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly
> developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
> totally out of the window.
>
>
>
>
>

What's the date comparison on More's novel (let's call it what it is) and the
broken sword painting (where his left hand was originally depicted as a severely
deformed stump and then later repainted with... well, we'll charitably call it
an attempt at a hand).




________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 4:42:39 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


Okay, you want to know what my view is? More's account is too late to be
reliable, and in so many respects isn't worth the paper it's written on; also,
his scene relies on Richard pulling up his sleeve to show people how abnormal
his arm is. It's fantasy.

Marie

I very much doubt Richard had any significant problem with his arm, Megan, for reasons already cited. But a neurosurgeon quoted on another list said that some degree of nerve damage resulting from the scoliosis could not be ruled out. If that's the case, I doubt it was chronic or easily noticeable. But, who knows, he may have had intermittent pain and/or weakness that was later exaggerated. Another reason for a thorough investigation of the skeleton.

Jonathan

I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth?

In the heat of battle -- with foot-soldiers banging into the horse and/or with the knight atop it bashing with his weaponry at said foot-soldiers or another mounted knight, with his horse also encased in armor -- I just can't see how the horse is going to be able to sense *subtle* aids in the physical chaos.

This is warfare, not dressage. Simple example: the last thing a knight would want in the middle of a battle is for his horse to stop dead when he reflexively shifted his pelvis and closed his fingers as he raised his sword. I also think the aids had to be different because a knight couldn't use both their hands to guide the horse during battle. The riding aids we're familiar with would also be handicapped by the knight's torso/legs being encased in steel. That eliminates the possibility of using a lot of subtle aids right there.

I'm also thinking of a Warmbloods vs. Arabians. We don't know the exact breeding of the war-horse, it's unfortunately lost to history (though Arabian was apparently in there to some extent). But some of those warmbloods... eesh, you have to thump them repeatedly to get their brains to even acknowledge you're asking them to do something, never mind get them to continue doing it once they've gotten the message. Unlike an Arabian or Irish Thoroughbred or Irish Draught.

I guess the truth is we can't know how a war-horse was trained to respond on a battlefield. But I just can't see where the more subtle aids would be possible for use where both knights and horses were bashing it out in vibrational chaos.

I'm just not seeing how an armored horse and rider could communicate through subtle aids when both were being bashed and violently bashing others as well.

~Weds

--- In , "Vee" wrote:
>
> Hi, I'm a bit of a lurker on here, so apologies for the intrusion, but as an experienced horserider I have to disagree with this, these horses were finely tuned and very well trained battle animals, they were worth a small fortune and would have been adept at reading extremely subtle forms of communication and have known their craft well. In fact it only takes a tiny shift in weight of the seat or a turn of the riders head or a minimal change in arm position in order to communicate. With a well trained horse you only have to 'think' a movement and it can happen, plus a well trained horse will automatically position itself correctly - probably the closest modern example of this is with the Lusitano or Andalucian bullfighting horses or well trained roping horses.
> The top level Polo ponies are also trained to 'auto pilot' and continue on a given course at a specific speed until told otherwise.
> The warhorse of this time would have been a formidable creature, by no means foolproof - they way to win was to bring the horses down, as of course demonstrated time and time again by our archers in the 100 years war
>
> V x
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."
> >
> > The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?
> >
> > I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."
> >
> > I think it depends on what problems the knight is having with his left arm. If the horse is trained for the specific rider, maybe his training could get round it. But I don't think it would be easy to overcome. For a performance in the dressage ring, yes. To perform in battle, no. There's just no time for a knight to apply finicky, subtle aids to communicate with his horse during a battle.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> > > Marie
> >
>

I'm not saying it would be a significant problem, just a very mild impairment.
If he was right-handed to start with, the fine motor control aspects probably
wouldn't even be noticed, and that takes the visibility/"problem" down to a
slight folding of the hand at rest.

While we're discussing his physical condition, by the way, the York Post is
saying he had bruxism, and that explains the flatness of his teeth (something
completely unmentioned by either his contemporaries or his later detractors).





________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 4:49:11 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


I very much doubt Richard had any significant problem with his arm, Megan, for
reasons already cited. But a neurosurgeon quoted on another list said that some
degree of nerve damage resulting from the scoliosis could not be ruled out. If
that's the case, I doubt it was chronic or easily noticeable. But, who knows,
he may have had intermittent pain and/or weakness that was later exaggerated.
Another reason for a thorough investigation of the skeleton.

Jonathan

The Martha C. Hawes paper evaluates the long standing bias regarding the use of exercise in the treatment of scoliosis. Iýve copied some of the relevant portions below. In general the paper addresses the hypothesis that active and passive exercise-based therapies can be used successfully to treat the signs and symptoms of spinal deformity in children and adults.


If thatýs the case then Richard, who led a very physically active life, may have been significantly less affected by his scoliosis then it seems from his skeleton. Clearly further research into the severity of his condition is needed, but I have no idea how he could have managed day to day if his scoliosis had been as bad as some have suggested. Hawesý bottom line conclusion is ýA small body of clinical and basic research now supports the hypothesis that exercise-based therapies can be used to reverse the signs and symptoms of scoliosis in children and adults. Conversely, there does not appear to be a single study supporting the dogma that scoliosis will not respond to exercise-based therapies applied early in the disease process."


ýThese papers [134, 144, 147ý150] comprise a small yet compelling body of research consistent with the most straightforward prediction of the ývicious cycleý model for spinal deformity development and progression [61, 62, 151]: Irrespective of the inciting trigger that causes a spinal curvature to develop, removing the resultant asymmetric gravity loading by restoring postural balance can improve signs and symptoms of scoliosis even after it has progressed to being a fixed spinal deformity [134, 145, 149]. If the asymmetric loading is removed before growth is complete, before too much time has passed, the spinal deformity can be completely eliminated [134, 144, 145, 148, 149]. In moderately severe curvatures in the range which warrants surgical intervention, the loss of spinal flexibility which defines a curvature as a spinal deformity can be reversed by more than 30% in response to treatment consisting of exercises performed daily for 8 days [147]. Even in long-standing, severe thoracic scoliosis whose associated pulmonary dysfunctions have progressed to the point of near-lethality, a dramatic reversal of the signs and symptoms can be accomplished in a matter of weeks in response to physical therapies which mobilize the curvature [148]. It is significant that the conclusions to be drawn from these studies apply to spinal deformity ranging from early mild cases to longstanding cases of catastrophic magnitude, in individuals ranging in age from babies to adults.



In the past decade, the Schroth Clinic in Bad Sobernheim, Germany, has published a series of studies exploring the use of exercise-based therapies in the treatment of scoliosis. The Schroth programme is based on the principle that spinal deformity, irrespective of its cause, by definition comprises a postural disorder and that patients will benefit from correction of that disorder. Scoliosis inpatient rehabilitation (SIR) essentially accomplishes the goals proposed by Stone et al. [123] following their preliminary survey: Those goals include more intensive exercise-based treatment, supervised by physical therapists over a defined period, with subsequent long-term follow-up. Clinical studies with large populations of children and adults have examined structure-function relationships between spinal curvature and symptoms, including the dynamics of posture and breathing as they relate to the mechanics of spinal deformity. Other studies have measured the impact of treatment by comparing the magnitude of scoliosis signs and symptoms before and after treatment. Papers published in peer-reviewed English-language medical journals during the past decade report quantitative, statistically significant improvement in pain [152ý154] stabilization or improvement in curvature magnitude and torso deformity [154ý158], reduced psychological distress [159ý161] and measurably improved chest expansion and cardiopulmonary function [162, 163]."

I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 19:11
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Honestly wasn't meaning it for anyone Megan - in fact I think point 1 in my arguments for me carries the most weight; why did people with the intelligence and piety of Morton and MB not invoke the 'twisted King' argument. If he was that disabled he would have been a gift to their cause.

Carol responds:

I certainly agree that Morton would have used it against him, but I can't tell whether "intelligence and piety" is meant to be taken at face value or ironically. Intelligence I'll grant. He was far too shrewd and clever for Richard's good, and it was most unfortunate that Richard gave him into Buckingham's custody. But piety? Morton was a professional politician who used the clergy as a stepping stone onto king's councils (and no doubt appreciated the benefit of clergy, which kept him from being executed on more than one occasion. He was, as some chronicler wrote, a veteran intriguer who had probably been working behind the scenes creating animosities among Edward's followers long before Edward died. Can you tell me where you got the idea that he was pious? Priesthood was largely a profession for younger sons, not a calling in the sense that someone felt called by God to become one, in the fifteenth century. (Had he been that sort of man, he probably
would have spent his life in a monastery.)

But, yes, he of all people would have taken advantage of the association of evil with deformity, but unless he had a hand in More's "History," which seems to be based on other sources, including rumor, in combination with his own imagination, he (Morton) never did so, certainly not publicly in his own lifetime.

Carol  

Hi Megan,

Just to elucidate as I'm afraid my last message sounded blunter than I meant it to - just so many posts to read through.

My problem with the withered arm in More is that it isn't even part of a general description of Richard's appearance; it emerges out of nowhere as the basis of an accusation of witchcraft against Elizabeth Woodville and Mistress Shore. So it is more than a matter of a possible small deficiency in use of left arm being blown up out of proportion. Either Richard accused EW and MS of using witchcraft to wither - or do something nasty - to his arm or he didn't.

I'm probably well known by long standing members of the forum for being pretty uninterested in chronicles and histories except as a last source, after all the solid documents have been examined, because otherwise you have know way of assessing whether they're accurate where they can be checked, and I try to avoid completely anything written more than a very few years after the event.
I suggest whatever Richard accused anybody of in the Tower that morning, it was a bit more substantial than withering his arm, and maybe one day we'll have a bit more idea of what it was. But for me the withered arm is up there with More's other great ideas, like Tyrrell's being a nonentity desperate for promotion, and Richard planning to murder the princes whilst sitting on the toilet.

If we find out from study of the bones that there is likely to have been some problem with the left arm after all, then of course I'll accept that quite happily, and we can then talk about More using some small known defect for dramatic purposes. But unless and until that happens I see no reason to have anything to do with it. More wasn't bothered about facts. There are so many contempory documents with so much information in them about Richard's life, I always find it a shame that even amongst Ricardians they get sidelined for the Tudor melodramas.

Marie



--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Megan.....It makes you think....something like this, a small detail..totally blown out of proportion..Eileen
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting, and amazing phenomena. And you are just lovely. Nice to see your face!
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Megan Lerseth" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
> > press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just a
> > slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is compensating
> > (apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
> > already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right hand
> > had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that Richard's
> > left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any damage
> > to it.
> >
> > I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with the
> > withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from one
> > another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
> > there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
> > rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
> > lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this, but
> > here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
> > http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.
> >
> > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that
> > might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might
> > have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
> > memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] >
> > To:
> > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> > The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and
> > doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been
> > told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly
> > developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
> > totally out of the window.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Just realised Carol - the one person who had met Richard in the flesh and could have easily said something was Louis XI of France in 1475 when Richard was made to go and meet him to do penance for not attending the Treaty of Picquigny. Now Louis was no lover of Richard and I know he died just before Richard but wouldn't Richard's 'affliction' be mentioned somewhere in France? I agree it could have worsened since 1475 but Louis's spies would have made sure he knew about that.

Yet another thought H

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >[snip] I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent point regarding Colyngbourne and his bit of doggerel (which, I hope everyone knows was not the cause of his horrible death for treason). The worst he could come up with was some bad puns on names and badges that made Richard and his three best-known supporters sound like a domestic menagerie. If he could have brought in a crooked back or any visible deformity, he would have done so.
>
> BTW, according to Charles Ross (a moderate traditionalist who does at least try to be objective), the earliest Tudor chronicles (Great Chronicle, London Chronicle, and Vitellius) make no mention of any deformity. If Rous hadn't mentioned the raised shoulder, followed and exaggerated by Vergil (and More, whose work was not even intended for publication), the only basis for the myth would be the stray crookback remark in York after Richard's death. Shakespeare would have had to emphasize his supposed villainy without the mountain on his back, and most people would never have heard of Richard. I can just imagine the archaeologists saying, "This skeleton can't be Richard's. It has a crooked back."
>
> Carol
>

Oh, I know the withered arm shows up out of nowhere in More. I'm just wondering
if that was a little bit of cheeky embroidery, so to speak, based on that
portrait or something. But it's the portrait that makes me wonder, really, much
more than More (and the firsthand understanding of the possible condition adds
some personal investment to the whole thing, I'll admit).


From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 5:38:11 PM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


Hi Megan,

Just to elucidate as I'm afraid my last message sounded blunter than I meant it
to - just so many posts to read through.


My problem with the withered arm in More is that it isn't even part of a general
description of Richard's appearance; it emerges out of nowhere as the basis of
an accusation of witchcraft against Elizabeth Woodville and Mistress Shore. So
it is more than a matter of a possible small deficiency in use of left arm being
blown up out of proportion. Either Richard accused EW and MS of using witchcraft
to wither - or do something nasty - to his arm or he didn't.

I'm probably well known by long standing members of the forum for being pretty
uninterested in chronicles and histories except as a last source, after all the
solid documents have been examined, because otherwise you have know way of
assessing whether they're accurate where they can be checked, and I try to avoid
completely anything written more than a very few years after the event.
I suggest whatever Richard accused anybody of in the Tower that morning, it was
a bit more substantial than withering his arm, and maybe one day we'll have a
bit more idea of what it was. But for me the withered arm is up there with
More's other great ideas, like Tyrrell's being a nonentity desperate for
promotion, and Richard planning to murder the princes whilst sitting on the
toilet.

If we find out from study of the bones that there is likely to have been some
problem with the left arm after all, then of course I'll accept that quite
happily, and we can then talk about More using some small known defect for
dramatic purposes. But unless and until that happens I see no reason to have
anything to do with it. More wasn't bothered about facts. There are so many
contempory documents with so much information in them about Richard's life, I
always find it a shame that even amongst Ricardians they get sidelined for the
Tudor melodramas.

Marie

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> Thanks for that Megan.....It makes you think....something like this, a small
>detail..totally blown out of proportion..Eileen
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Very interesting, and amazing phenomena. And you are just lovely. Nice to see
>your face!
> >
> > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Megan Lerseth" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
> > press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just
a
> > slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is
>compensating
> > (apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
> > already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right
hand
> > had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that
>Richard's
> > left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any
>damage
> > to it.
> >
> > I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with
the
> > withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from
>one
> > another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
> > there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
> > rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
> > lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this,
but
> > here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
> > http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.
> >
> > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail
>that
> > might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but
might
> > have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
> > memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] >
> > To:
> > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> > The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right,
>and
> > doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have
been
> > told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were
>similarly
> > developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
> > totally out of the window.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I remember watching a television program covering the
discovery and excavation of a gladiator school and
cemetery in York.  They were able to pretty easily

identify who trained at what discipline due to the bone

density and development of limbs, spine, thighs, etc.  
It takes a lot of repetitive effort to affect bones to that
degree, which points at long periods of intensive training

for anyone exhibiting such enhanced development, be

they gladiator, knight, or tennis player.


~Penny


Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
Wed Feb 13, 2013 7:39 am (PST) . Posted by:
"C HOLMES" christineholmes651@...
Hello , very interesting points you make about modern
tennis players. I have read somewhere that they have 28% more bone mass
than the  average person, so this could also be the same for Richard.
The exercises they had to do were very intense such as  jumping onto
their horse fully equipped. This would mean that the person had to be
very fit and agile.
 
Loyaulte me Lie
 Christine
 
Live simply.  Love generously.  Care deeply.  Speak kindly.
        And never regret anything that made you smile.

Ah, was it you that was asking about the Broken Sword portrait? That's a really late one. I think it's 17th century. Can anyone help me out here?
Marie


--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Oh, I know the withered arm shows up out of nowhere in More. I'm just wondering
> if that was a little bit of cheeky embroidery, so to speak, based on that
> portrait or something. But it's the portrait that makes me wonder, really, much
> more than More (and the firsthand understanding of the possible condition adds
> some personal investment to the whole thing, I'll admit).
>
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 5:38:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> Hi Megan,
>
> Just to elucidate as I'm afraid my last message sounded blunter than I meant it
> to - just so many posts to read through.
>
>
> My problem with the withered arm in More is that it isn't even part of a general
> description of Richard's appearance; it emerges out of nowhere as the basis of
> an accusation of witchcraft against Elizabeth Woodville and Mistress Shore. So
> it is more than a matter of a possible small deficiency in use of left arm being
> blown up out of proportion. Either Richard accused EW and MS of using witchcraft
> to wither - or do something nasty - to his arm or he didn't.
>
> I'm probably well known by long standing members of the forum for being pretty
> uninterested in chronicles and histories except as a last source, after all the
> solid documents have been examined, because otherwise you have know way of
> assessing whether they're accurate where they can be checked, and I try to avoid
> completely anything written more than a very few years after the event.
> I suggest whatever Richard accused anybody of in the Tower that morning, it was
> a bit more substantial than withering his arm, and maybe one day we'll have a
> bit more idea of what it was. But for me the withered arm is up there with
> More's other great ideas, like Tyrrell's being a nonentity desperate for
> promotion, and Richard planning to murder the princes whilst sitting on the
> toilet.
>
> If we find out from study of the bones that there is likely to have been some
> problem with the left arm after all, then of course I'll accept that quite
> happily, and we can then talk about More using some small known defect for
> dramatic purposes. But unless and until that happens I see no reason to have
> anything to do with it. More wasn't bothered about facts. There are so many
> contempory documents with so much information in them about Richard's life, I
> always find it a shame that even amongst Ricardians they get sidelined for the
> Tudor melodramas.
>
> Marie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for that Megan.....It makes you think....something like this, a small
> >detail..totally blown out of proportion..Eileen
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Very interesting, and amazing phenomena. And you are just lovely. Nice to see
> >your face!
> > >
> > > On Feb 13, 2013, at 3:04 PM, "Megan Lerseth" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My bones are probably the same size; my arms are of equal length and when I
> > > press my hands together they're of the same dimensions. It's literally just
> a
> > > slight distinction in muscularity and the fact that my right arm is
> >compensating
> > > (apparently I was "supposed to be" left-handed, but since my left arm was
> > > already damaged by the time I was developing fine motor control my right
> hand
> > > had to take over- I still hold a pencil oddly). I'm not arguing that
> >Richard's
> > > left arm would have been visibly diminished or anything if there were any
> >damage
> > > to it.
> > >
> > > I guess the main reason I'm thinking this might have something to do with
> the
> > > withered arm myth is because my hands do sit differently when relaxed from
> >one
> > > another- not to the point of seeming abnormal, but if you look for it, it's
> > > there. When I sit them on a flat surface or hold my arms up with my hands at
> > > rest, the fingers of my left hand naturally curl under; my right hand
> > > lies/suspends relatively flat (apologies for injecting my face into this,
> but
> > > here's a photo I took just now with my laptop to demonstrate what I mean:
> > > http://i50.tinypic.com/2nkj5hc.png ). I'm pretty sure the bones are normal.
> > >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail
> >that
> > > might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but
> might
> > > have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand
> > > memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected] >
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 3:05:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> > > Reputation
> > >
> > > The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right,
> >and
> > > doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have
> been
> > > told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were
> >similarly
> > > developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is
> > > totally out of the window.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

That is very very interesting. Thanks for posting, and once again, begs the question, have the "experts" started further investigations?

On Feb 13, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Florence Dove" <mdove9@...> wrote:

> The Martha C. Hawes paper evaluates the long standing bias regarding the use of exercise in the treatment of scoliosis. I've copied some of the relevant portions below. In general the paper addresses the hypothesis that active and passive exercise-based therapies can be used successfully to treat the signs and symptoms of spinal deformity in children and adults.
>
>
> If that's the case then Richard, who led a very physically active life, may have been significantly less affected by his scoliosis then it seems from his skeleton. Clearly further research into the severity of his condition is needed, but I have no idea how he could have managed day to day if his scoliosis had been as bad as some have suggested. Hawes' bottom line conclusion is A small body of clinical and basic research now supports the hypothesis that exercise-based therapies can be used to reverse the signs and symptoms of scoliosis in children and adults. Conversely, there does not appear to be a single study supporting the dogma that scoliosis will not respond to exercise-based therapies applied early in the disease process."
>
>
> These papers [134, 144, 147150] comprise a small yet compelling body of research consistent with the most straightforward prediction of the vicious cycle' model for spinal deformity development and progression [61, 62, 151]: Irrespective of the inciting trigger that causes a spinal curvature to develop, removing the resultant asymmetric gravity loading by restoring postural balance can improve signs and symptoms of scoliosis even after it has progressed to being a fixed spinal deformity [134, 145, 149]. If the asymmetric loading is removed before growth is complete, before too much time has passed, the spinal deformity can be completely eliminated [134, 144, 145, 148, 149]. In moderately severe curvatures in the range which warrants surgical intervention, the loss of spinal flexibility which defines a curvature as a spinal deformity can be reversed by more than 30% in response to treatment consisting of exercises performed daily for 8 days [147]. Even in long-standing, severe thoracic scoliosis whose associated pulmonary dysfunctions have progressed to the point of near-lethality, a dramatic reversal of the signs and symptoms can be accomplished in a matter of weeks in response to physical therapies which mobilize the curvature [148]. It is significant that the conclusions to be drawn from these studies apply to spinal deformity ranging from early mild cases to longstanding cases of catastrophic magnitude, in individuals ranging in age from babies to adults.
>
>
>
> In the past decade, the Schroth Clinic in Bad Sobernheim, Germany, has published a series of studies exploring the use of exercise-based therapies in the treatment of scoliosis. The Schroth programme is based on the principle that spinal deformity, irrespective of its cause, by definition comprises a postural disorder and that patients will benefit from correction of that disorder. Scoliosis inpatient rehabilitation (SIR) essentially accomplishes the goals proposed by Stone et al. [123] following their preliminary survey: Those goals include more intensive exercise-based treatment, supervised by physical therapists over a defined period, with subsequent long-term follow-up. Clinical studies with large populations of children and adults have examined structure-function relationships between spinal curvature and symptoms, including the dynamics of posture and breathing as they relate to the mechanics of spinal deformity. Other studies have measured the impact of treatment by comparing the magnitude of scoliosis signs and symptoms before and after treatment. Papers published in peer-reviewed English-language medical journals during the past decade report quantitative, statistically significant improvement in pain [152154] stabilization or improvement in curvature magnitude and torso deformity [154158], reduced psychological distress [159161] and measurably improved chest expansion and cardiopulmonary function [162, 163]."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> At risk of incurring a lot of ire here, is there any chance that this might also add to the- ugh- withered arm theory, but to a significantly (please bear with me here) lesser extent? Obviously there was no noticeable abnormality in the bones of his left arm, so it wouldn't've been a congenital deformity, but that does leave an opening for nerve damage (I think Penman suggested something like
> that in The Sunne in Splendour, attributing it to a battle injury).

Carol responds:

I don't recall anything like that in "Sunne in Splendour," only her reference to a scar on his (right?) arm resulting from an injury at Barnet that in no way interfered with the use of his arm. (BTW, I don't know whether there's any historical evidence for that injury, but I'm sure tha someone on this forum will.)

The withered arm story is More's invention, for which there is no basis either in the chronicles or in the skeleton. In fact, the scientists said that was one myth we could safely discard.

And since people *can* read these posts without subscribing to this list, it's one topic that, with all due respect, we probably would be better off not reviving.

Carol

Marie wrote:
>
> More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> Marie

Carol adds:

I agree. And the team specifically stated that both arms were the same length. I wouldn't be surprised if the bones of his right arm were slightly bigger as most right-handed people's are, but the difference if any is not noticeable and the scientists dismissed the withered arm as myth. His limbs were delicate but perfectly normal, as von Popellau's description has always indicated.

Carol

--- In , "hjnatdat" wrote:
>
> There have been a number of posts during the last few days in which the conjecture about Richard's health, stature and even ability to produce children has gone from bad to worse. His detractors in the hunchback camp must be rubbing their hands with glee.
>


I notice that Richard's skeleton shows clear evidence of scoliosis, but it is possible that it was not dramatically obvious, depending on the way in which the spine curved. I too have scoliosis, but I needed an x-ray in adulthood before it showed up - it is a sideways curve that I was born with and also encompasses a strangely shaped lung and heart - both of which, I am assured, seem to work fine. Richard certainly seems to have fought and lived without much overt commentary on any physical disability. In my case, nobody looking at me would notice (Unless they see my spine naked) but I'm sure my skeleton would show an obvious spinal curve. Doubt it would have affected his ability to sire children?? Where did that come from? The fact that he had no further legitimate children after Edward?

I'll concede that in a melee subtlety would have gone out the window, there wouldn't have been room for manoeuvre let alone anything else, subtle aids would be pointless you would either have to rely on the horse fighting back through training or self preservation and completely surrounded this is unlikey to get anyone to safety. However it's perfectly possible to have refined aids with a full suit of armour on (friend does stunt riding), to ride without the use of one or either arms in a battle situation (google Mongolian horse riders though there are a multitude of examples) and also to ride with severe scoliosis to an extremely high level (para dressage teams)
I think we are actually both on the same side as far as the general liklihood is that Richard could have been an excellent horseman, with or without any kind of deformity or disability and with or without full armour - however in a close up melee or in a situation where a horseman is surrounded by foot soldiers there is very little ANY rider could do to prevent being overwhelmed. :-)

V

--- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth?
>
> In the heat of battle -- with foot-soldiers banging into the horse and/or with the knight atop it bashing with his weaponry at said foot-soldiers or another mounted knight, with his horse also encased in armor -- I just can't see how the horse is going to be able to sense *subtle* aids in the physical chaos.
>
> This is warfare, not dressage. Simple example: the last thing a knight would want in the middle of a battle is for his horse to stop dead when he reflexively shifted his pelvis and closed his fingers as he raised his sword. I also think the aids had to be different because a knight couldn't use both their hands to guide the horse during battle. The riding aids we're familiar with would also be handicapped by the knight's torso/legs being encased in steel. That eliminates the possibility of using a lot of subtle aids right there.
>
> I'm also thinking of a Warmbloods vs. Arabians. We don't know the exact breeding of the war-horse, it's unfortunately lost to history (though Arabian was apparently in there to some extent). But some of those warmbloods... eesh, you have to thump them repeatedly to get their brains to even acknowledge you're asking them to do something, never mind get them to continue doing it once they've gotten the message. Unlike an Arabian or Irish Thoroughbred or Irish Draught.
>
> I guess the truth is we can't know how a war-horse was trained to respond on a battlefield. But I just can't see where the more subtle aids would be possible for use where both knights and horses were bashing it out in vibrational chaos.
>
> I'm just not seeing how an armored horse and rider could communicate through subtle aids when both were being bashed and violently bashing others as well.
>
> ~Weds

> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > > > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left arm, do you think?
> > > > Marie
> > >
> >
>

I don't know whether you've looked at the stuff on the 1991 R3 exhibition in London (I think they have it on the R3 site or you can find it by googling). There's some good stuff there by Pamela Tudor-Craig - her of the recent programme, about the royal portraits. It's under the bit called 'I looked on Richard's face)  It's well worth reading and, I think, hints that R's portrait was one of a pair with Anne, just as E4's was one of a pair with EW. Where that lost portrait is who knows?  I live in hope. H.   



________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 22:41
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

Just realised Carol - the one person who had met Richard in the flesh and could have easily said something was Louis XI of France in 1475 when Richard was made to go and meet him to do penance for not attending the Treaty of Picquigny. Now Louis was no lover of Richard and I know he died just before Richard but wouldn't Richard's 'affliction' be mentioned somewhere in France? I agree it could have worsened since 1475 but Louis's spies would have made sure he knew about that.

Yet another thought H

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> >[snip] I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Excellent point regarding Colyngbourne and his bit of doggerel (which, I hope everyone knows was not the cause of his horrible death for treason). The worst he could come up with was some bad puns on names and badges that made Richard and his three best-known supporters sound like a domestic menagerie. If he could have brought in a crooked back or any visible deformity, he would have done so.
>
> BTW, according to Charles Ross (a moderate traditionalist who does at least try to be objective), the earliest Tudor chronicles (Great Chronicle, London Chronicle, and Vitellius) make no mention of any deformity. If Rous hadn't mentioned the raised shoulder, followed and exaggerated by Vergil (and More, whose work was not even intended for publication), the only basis for the myth would be the stray crookback remark in York after Richard's death. Shakespeare would have had to emphasize his supposed villainy without the mountain on his back, and most people would never have heard of Richard. I can just imagine the archaeologists saying, "This skeleton can't be Richard's. It has a crooked back."
>
> Carol
>

Sorry posted this in wrong place - should have been to Ishita.



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I don't know whether you've looked at the stuff on the 1991 R3 exhibition in London (I think they have it on the R3 site or you can find it by googling). There's some good stuff there by Pamela Tudor-Craig - her of the recent programme, about the royal portraits. It's under the bit called 'I looked on Richard's face)  It's well worth reading and, I think, hints that R's portrait was one of a pair with Anne, just as E4's was one of a pair with EW. Where that lost portrait is who knows?  I live in hope. H.   


________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2013, 22:41
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Just realised Carol - the one person who had met Richard in the flesh and could have easily said something was Louis XI of France in 1475 when Richard was made to go and meet him to do penance for not attending the Treaty of Picquigny. Now Louis was no lover of Richard and I know he died just before Richard but wouldn't Richard's 'affliction' be mentioned somewhere in France? I agree it could have worsened since 1475 but Louis's spies would have made sure he knew about that. Yet another thought H --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Hilary Jones wrote: > > > >[snip] I've just looked at the verbal evidence from the time and find it hard to believe that a man with that degree of disability would have been invading Scotland a couple of years' before or would have evoked no 'nasty' comments about it - not even from Colyingbourne. > > Carol responds: > > Excellent point regarding Colyngbourne and his bit of
doggerel (which, I hope everyone knows was not the cause of his horrible death for treason). The worst he could come up with was some bad puns on names and badges that made Richard and his three best-known supporters sound like a domestic menagerie. If he could have brought in a crooked back or any visible deformity, he would have done so. > > BTW, according to Charles Ross (a moderate traditionalist who does at least try to be objective), the earliest Tudor chronicles (Great Chronicle, London Chronicle, and Vitellius) make no mention of any deformity. If Rous hadn't mentioned the raised shoulder, followed and exaggerated by Vergil (and More, whose work was not even intended for publication), the only basis for the myth would be the stray crookback remark in York after Richard's death. Shakespeare would have had to emphasize his supposed villainy without the mountain on his back, and most people would never have heard of Richard. I can just imagine the
archaeologists saying, "This skeleton can't be Richard's. It has a crooked back." > > Carol >

Poxy lie invented by that well known supporter of Richard Bishop Morton,
and passed on to More et al.
Perfect choice of word Eileen, 'poxy'!
Paul

On 13/02/2013 20:21, EileenB wrote:
> Ive often wondered if the birth of that poxy lie evolved from something Richard uttered at the council meeting...something on the lines of 'my hands are tied'...something to describe how he felt about the situation he had been cast into...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>> The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is totally out of the window.
>>
>>
>> --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>>> Well, on the most basic level, my left arm is a bit smaller than my right (if I
>>> do the standard bicep-display flexion, you can barely see anything show up on my
>>> left arm, but it's very noticeable on my right), and I'm not particularly
>>> athletic. That's just from carrying my laptop bag and small children. I'd think
>>> that someone with a similar condition but considerably more athletic prowess-
>>> and probably more visible musculature to start with, as he was a small-framed,
>>> thin man and I'm a large-framed woman carrying about twenty extra pounds than
>>> are necessary- would already look a bit more unevenly distributed.
>>>
>>> Like I said, I'm not really disabled in that arm- I can pick up most items the
>>> size of about a pack of cards in one go with it (smaller objects take a couple
>>> of tries, usually, because of the need for finer direction of the fingers), but
>>> I struggle a little with things like proper typing because of the little, almost
>>> twitchlike movements that are necessary for that. I type with primarily my right
>>> hand, and only using my left for the keys at the far left of the keyboard and to
>>> do things like tapping the shift key to capitalize letters. I can still grip
>>> with it, though- it's no trouble to use my left arm to carry heavy bags or
>>> anything, so if Richard's condition was anything like mine, he could probably
>>> still hold into and steer his horse with his left hand while using his right to
>>> wield his axe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: mariewalsh2003
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:07:49 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
>>> Reputation
>>>
>>>
>>> More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
>>> How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left
>>> arm, do you think?
>>> Marie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

He used a battleaxe and sword. Difficult, no impossible to do if there
was any problem with your arms and hands.
Paul

On 13/02/2013 21:49, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> I very much doubt Richard had any significant problem with his arm, Megan, for reasons already cited. But a neurosurgeon quoted on another list said that some degree of nerve damage resulting from the scoliosis could not be ruled out. If that's the case, I doubt it was chronic or easily noticeable. But, who knows, he may have had intermittent pain and/or weakness that was later exaggerated. Another reason for a thorough investigation of the skeleton.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>[snip]

> I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.

Carol responds:

Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.

There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.

Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.

Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.

With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.

Carol

I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
>
> There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
>
> Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
>
> Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
>
> With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
>
> Carol
>

Maybe I haven't been making myself clear enough, I don't know. I've tried
explaining in several posts that the extent of a "problem" with my own left arm-
which I've been using as a point of reference here- is that the fingers tend to
curl under a little at rest, in a non-disfiguring, non-paralyzed way, and that I
have trouble picking up very small objects with it. No bone deformity
whatsoever, and a free range of motion (I did look at his hands in the
portraits, and I can do that exact position with mine with no problems). It
literally comes down to the idea of the left arm being only a tiny bit less able
in the technical sense (not enough to merit a true disability) and having a
characteristic resting position.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter.


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Thu, February 14, 2013 11:28:49 AM
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation


I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't
show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to
me. Maire.

Megan, you made yourself perfectly clear and it was a perfectly reasonable comment. Nothing to do with More, which is a fiction. I'd already mentioned a neurosurgeon who'd postulated the same thing based on the appearance of the skeleton. (This person also said the degree of scoliosis couldn't be estimated from the alignment of the bones in a cramped grave, lest anyone think him a Tudor apologist.)

Anyway, as I also said, I thought any impairment unlikely given the contemporary evidence. But it's a perfectly valid area of discussion and I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of certain subjects being off limits.

As messages *can* be read by non-members, the worst thing that could happen is not someone discovering a speculative discussion about neurological symptoms but seeing a post that says "Shhh! We mustn't talk about this in case it gets out."

What have we got to hide?

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

I agree Maire
Unless you have the full articulated skeleton there is very little to archive other than conjecture over photos.......just let it drop until there is quantifiable expert analysis.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 14, 2013, at 11:28 AM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:

> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >[snip]
> >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
> >
> > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
> >
> > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
> >
> > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
> >
> > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

Please don't think that I meant to curtail your posts in any way! I didn't mean to try and silence you. Believe me, I've been in your shoes with my own ideas! Maire.

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Maybe I haven't been making myself clear enough, I don't know. I've tried
> explaining in several posts that the extent of a "problem" with my own left arm-
> which I've been using as a point of reference here- is that the fingers tend to
> curl under a little at rest, in a non-disfiguring, non-paralyzed way, and that I
> have trouble picking up very small objects with it. No bone deformity
> whatsoever, and a free range of motion (I did look at his hands in the
> portraits, and I can do that exact position with mine with no problems). It
> literally comes down to the idea of the left arm being only a tiny bit less able
> in the technical sense (not enough to merit a true disability) and having a
> characteristic resting position.
>
> This is the last I'm going to say on the matter.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Thu, February 14, 2013 11:28:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't
> show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to
> me. Maire.
>
>
>
>

Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he was.....Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >[snip]
> >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
> >
> > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
> >
> > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
> >
> > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
> >
> > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Here's where I am:
 
Mild scoliosis with one shoulder slightly higher than the other (for whatever reason)  - I buy
Hunchback and seriously disabled, withered arms etc - the fact that he walked this earth for 32 years and no-one, friend, foe, foreigner, cleric drew attention to this major disability in his lifetime - I don't buy and will take a lot of convincing
 
And I too am so fed up with chewing on the bones rather than trying to sort out an explanation from Univ of Leics.
 
H.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 20:39
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he was.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >[snip]
> >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
> >
> > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
> >
> > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
> >
> > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
> >
> > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all dead
and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation





Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
was.....Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
gnawing to me. Maire.
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >[snip]
> >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then
gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
been anything wrong with him.
> >
> > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous,
writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
Richard's arms or hands.
> >
> > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth
and never saw Richard.
> >
> > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs
further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
(Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
thought of it.
> >
> > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that
our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard box for too long......Eileen

--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think the ultimate irony in all this is that Richard was dumped in an undersized grave and so the debate will go on forever. As you said George the genie is indeed out of the bottle and we begin another fight we'd never dreamed of, just because some kind friars tried to do their best for him.  I'm sure the fifteenth century mind would have said there was some wrong conjunction of the stars.


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 20:51
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all dead
and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.

George

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
was.....Eileen

--- In
, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>
> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
gnawing to me. Maire.
>
> --- In
, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >[snip]
> >
> > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then
gradually exaggerated.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
been anything wrong with him.
> >
> > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous,
writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
Richard's arms or hands.
> >
> > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth
and never saw Richard.
> >
> > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs
further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
(Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
thought of it.
> >
> > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that
our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.



George





From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation





I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

This reminds me of a post a month or so ago when a " troll" suggested that R's remains are put in a glass box and put on display........ I wouldn't want my remains on a display and am sure Richard wouldn't either. It is just the worst development so far! IMHO.

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

On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:06 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
> university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
> academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
> knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
> be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
> Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.
>
> All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
> that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
> that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
> his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.
>
> George
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
> box for too long......Eileen
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> > to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
> dead
> > and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> > having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
> Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> > credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> > was.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> > doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> > gnawing to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> > detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> > description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> > had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
> then
> > gradually exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> > Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> > original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> > been anything wrong with him.
> > > >
> > > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
> Rous,
> > writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> > Richard's arms or hands.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> > describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> > invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
> Bosworth
> > and never saw Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
> needs
> > further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> > Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> > (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> > River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> > basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> > manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> > thought of it.
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
> that
> > our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

What? "It will take time to build /consecrate his tombs as well as the arrangements...." Almost a year? Leave it out...Its a complete nonsense..."They" whoever that might be..need to get their fingers out. They are not building the Taj Mahal...just a simple grave ...the monument can be put up at a later date Eileen

--- In , "George Butterfield" wrote:
>. They have said
> that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
> his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
> box for too long......Eileen
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> > to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
> dead
> > and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> > having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
> Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> > credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> > was.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> > doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> > gnawing to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> > detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> > description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> > had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
> then
> > gradually exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> > Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> > original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> > been anything wrong with him.
> > > >
> > > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
> Rous,
> > writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> > Richard's arms or hands.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> > describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> > invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
> Bosworth
> > and never saw Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
> needs
> > further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> > Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> > (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> > River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> > basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> > manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> > thought of it.
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
> that
> > our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Don't worry it's not going to happen.

G



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Ishita Bandyo
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:10 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation





This reminds me of a post a month or so ago when a " troll" suggested that R's remains are put in a glass box and put on display........ I wouldn't want my remains on a display and am sure Richard wouldn't either. It is just the worst development so far! IMHO.

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

On Feb 14, 2013, at 4:06 PM, "George Butterfield" gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

> I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
> university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
> academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
> knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
> be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
> Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.
>
> All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
> that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
> that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
> his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.
>
> George
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
> box for too long......Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> > to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
> dead
> > and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> > having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
> Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> > credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> > was.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> > doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> > gnawing to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> > detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> > description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> > had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
> then
> > gradually exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> > Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> > original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> > been anything wrong with him.
> > > >
> > > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
> Rous,
> > writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> > Richard's arms or hands.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> > describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> > invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
> Bosworth
> > and never saw Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
> needs
> > further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> > Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> > (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> > River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> > basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> > manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> > thought of it.
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
> that
> > our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I think the difference is we know who this person is and he didn't leave his remains to medical research (like some of my friends have). He probably died a horrible death, he'd had a lot of sorrow in his life and he's been reviled afterwards. Can't we at least give him peace again and soon. We'd never dream of doing this to some unknown soldier from the Somme. I'm usually quite objective but I do feel quite strongly about this. Would you agree to say Nelson's or Wellington's disinterred bodies being kept in a lab for months and analysed with our without the display? 
Sorry for the outburst and I know we have to learn things from dead bodies. Cheers H 


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:

> [mailto:
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To:

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I cannot vouch for Wellington however Nelson&



On October 21, 1805, the British Fleet commanded by Lord Horatio Nelson met the Combined Fleet of France and Spain off the coast of Spain at Cape Trafalgar. The British victory in the ensuing battle inaugurated British naval dominance for over one hundred years. But in the midst of the battle, Nelson was mortally wounded by a sniper from the French ship Redoutable.



It was his last words that it was his lot for me to go but I am going to Heaven, but never haul down your colours to France for your men will stick to you - them words was to Captn. Hardy and so we did - for we came off victorious and they have behaved well to us for they wanted to take Ld. Nelson from us, but we told Captn., as we brought him out we would bring him home, so it was so and he was put into a cask of spirits.

James Bayley, from Tom Pocock's Nelson



And thereupon hangs a legend: supposedly when the cask arrived in England it was discovered to be less than full. The sailors of Victory had sampled the Nelson vintage.



From this incident, its is claimed, the phrase "tapping the admiral" arose, although this is not a phrase you are likely to hear very often nowadays. British sailors formerly said "tapping the admiral" for drinking rum, against regulations, out of a coconut from which the milk had been drained; later the phrase was used for drinking surreptitiously from a cask by means of a straw inserted through a small hole.

Jan Harold Brunvand, The Choking Doberman



Here's the real story:



Nelson's body was preserved first in a cask of brandy - at Gibraltar, this was changed to spirits of wine - lashed to the mainmast [of Victory] and guarded day and night by a marine sentry as his cabin had been.

Pocock, ibid.



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation





I think the difference is we know who this person is and he didn't leave his remains to medical research (like some of my friends have). He probably died a horrible death, he'd had a lot of sorrow in his life and he's been reviled afterwards. Can't we at least give him peace again and soon. We'd never dream of doing this to some unknown soldier from the Somme. I'm usually quite objective but I do feel quite strongly about this. Would you agree to say Nelson's or Wellington's disinterred bodies being kept in a lab for months and analysed with our without the display?
Sorry for the outburst and I know we have to learn things from dead bodies. Cheers H


________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Smithsonian has lots of Native American bones. Some have been returned to the tribes for burial, but more is in storage than is on display.... Probably the same for most large museums.
P

On Feb 14, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I knew you'd come up with a good answer.  I take it they removed the spirits before taking him to St Paul's?
As for Wellington - I bet it was an altogether more sombre affair.  H 


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:27
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

I cannot vouch for Wellington however Nelson&

On October 21, 1805, the British Fleet commanded by Lord Horatio Nelson met the Combined Fleet of France and Spain off the coast of Spain at Cape Trafalgar. The British victory in the ensuing battle inaugurated British naval dominance for over one hundred years. But in the midst of the battle, Nelson was mortally wounded by a sniper from the French ship Redoutable.

It was his last words that it was his lot for me to go but I am going to Heaven, but never haul down your colours to France for your men will stick to you - them words was to Captn. Hardy and so we did - for we came off victorious and they have behaved well to us for they wanted to take Ld. Nelson from us, but we told Captn., as we brought him out we would bring him home, so it was so and he was put into a cask of spirits.

James Bayley, from Tom Pocock's Nelson

And thereupon hangs a legend: supposedly when the cask arrived in England it was discovered to be less than full. The sailors of Victory had sampled the Nelson vintage.

From this incident, its is claimed, the phrase "tapping the admiral" arose, although this is not a phrase you are likely to hear very often nowadays. British sailors formerly said "tapping the admiral" for drinking rum, against regulations, out of a coconut from which the milk had been drained; later the phrase was used for drinking surreptitiously from a cask by means of a straw inserted through a small hole.

Jan Harold Brunvand, The Choking Doberman

Here's the real story:

Nelson's body was preserved first in a cask of brandy - at Gibraltar, this was changed to spirits of wine - lashed to the mainmast [of Victory] and guarded day and night by a marine sentry as his cabin had been.

Pocock, ibid.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I think the difference is we know who this person is and he didn't leave his remains to medical research (like some of my friends have). He probably died a horrible death, he'd had a lot of sorrow in his life and he's been reviled afterwards. Can't we at least give him peace again and soon. We'd never dream of doing this to some unknown soldier from the Somme. I'm usually quite objective but I do feel quite strongly about this. Would you agree to say Nelson's or Wellington's disinterred bodies being kept in a lab for months and analysed with our without the display?
Sorry for the outburst and I know we have to learn things from dead bodies. Cheers H

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... >
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From:
[mailto: ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:

> [mailto:
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To:

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have it on good repute that if you go into the Crypt on Trafalgar night and listen very carefully you can still hear hiccups!

G



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation





I knew you'd come up with a good answer. I take it they removed the spirits before taking him to St Paul's?
As for Wellington - I bet it was an altogether more sombre affair. H


________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:27
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



I cannot vouch for Wellington however Nelson&

On October 21, 1805, the British Fleet commanded by Lord Horatio Nelson met the Combined Fleet of France and Spain off the coast of Spain at Cape Trafalgar. The British victory in the ensuing battle inaugurated British naval dominance for over one hundred years. But in the midst of the battle, Nelson was mortally wounded by a sniper from the French ship Redoutable.

It was his last words that it was his lot for me to go but I am going to Heaven, but never haul down your colours to France for your men will stick to you - them words was to Captn. Hardy and so we did - for we came off victorious and they have behaved well to us for they wanted to take Ld. Nelson from us, but we told Captn., as we brought him out we would bring him home, so it was so and he was put into a cask of spirits.

James Bayley, from Tom Pocock's Nelson

And thereupon hangs a legend: supposedly when the cask arrived in England it was discovered to be less than full. The sailors of Victory had sampled the Nelson vintage.

From this incident, its is claimed, the phrase "tapping the admiral" arose, although this is not a phrase you are likely to hear very often nowadays. British sailors formerly said "tapping the admiral" for drinking rum, against regulations, out of a coconut from which the milk had been drained; later the phrase was used for drinking surreptitiously from a cask by means of a straw inserted through a small hole.

Jan Harold Brunvand, The Choking Doberman

Here's the real story:

Nelson's body was preserved first in a cask of brandy - at Gibraltar, this was changed to spirits of wine - lashed to the mainmast [of Victory] and guarded day and night by a marine sentry as his cabin had been.

Pocock, ibid.

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:21 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I think the difference is we know who this person is and he didn't leave his remains to medical research (like some of my friends have). He probably died a horrible death, he'd had a lot of sorrow in his life and he's been reviled afterwards. Can't we at least give him peace again and soon. We'd never dream of doing this to some unknown soldier from the Somme. I'm usually quite objective but I do feel quite strongly about this. Would you agree to say Nelson's or Wellington's disinterred bodies being kept in a lab for months and analysed with our without the display?
Sorry for the outburst and I know we have to learn things from dead bodies. Cheers H

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... <mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> [mailto: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Good night George !



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:38
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

I have it on good repute that if you go into the Crypt on Trafalgar night and listen very carefully you can still hear hiccups!

G

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:30 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I knew you'd come up with a good answer. I take it they removed the spirits before taking him to St Paul's?
As for Wellington - I bet it was an altogether more sombre affair. H

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... >
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:27
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I cannot vouch for Wellington however Nelson&

On October 21, 1805, the British Fleet commanded by Lord Horatio Nelson met the Combined Fleet of France and Spain off the coast of Spain at Cape Trafalgar. The British victory in the ensuing battle inaugurated British naval dominance for over one hundred years. But in the midst of the battle, Nelson was mortally wounded by a sniper from the French ship Redoutable.

It was his last words that it was his lot for me to go but I am going to Heaven, but never haul down your colours to France for your men will stick to you - them words was to Captn. Hardy and so we did - for we came off victorious and they have behaved well to us for they wanted to take Ld. Nelson from us, but we told Captn., as we brought him out we would bring him home, so it was so and he was put into a cask of spirits.

James Bayley, from Tom Pocock's Nelson

And thereupon hangs a legend: supposedly when the cask arrived in England it was discovered to be less than full. The sailors of Victory had sampled the Nelson vintage.

From this incident, its is claimed, the phrase "tapping the admiral" arose, although this is not a phrase you are likely to hear very often nowadays. British sailors formerly said "tapping the admiral" for drinking rum, against regulations, out of a coconut from which the milk had been drained; later the phrase was used for drinking surreptitiously from a cask by means of a straw inserted through a small hole.

Jan Harold Brunvand, The Choking Doberman

Here's the real story:

Nelson's body was preserved first in a cask of brandy - at Gibraltar, this was changed to spirits of wine - lashed to the mainmast [of Victory] and guarded day and night by a marine sentry as his cabin had been.

Pocock, ibid.

From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I think the difference is we know who this person is and he didn't leave his remains to medical research (like some of my friends have). He probably died a horrible death, he'd had a lot of sorrow in his life and he's been reviled afterwards. Can't we at least give him peace again and soon. We'd never dream of doing this to some unknown soldier from the Somme. I'm usually quite objective but I do feel quite strongly about this. Would you agree to say Nelson's or Wellington's disinterred bodies being kept in a lab for months and analysed with our without the display?
Sorry for the outburst and I know we have to learn things from dead bodies. Cheers H

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@... >
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 21:06
Subject: RE: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.

All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.

George

From:
[mailto: ] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation

I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
box for too long......Eileen

--- In
, "George Butterfield"
wrote:
>
> This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
dead
> and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From:

> [mailto:
] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> To:

> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
Richard's
> Reputation
>
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> was.....Eileen
>
> --- In

> , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> gnawing to me. Maire.
> >
> > --- In

> , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
then
> gradually exaggerated.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> been anything wrong with him.
> > >
> > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
Rous,
> writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> Richard's arms or hands.
> > >
> > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
Bosworth
> and never saw Richard.
> > >
> > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
needs
> further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> thought of it.
> > >
> > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
that
> our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

About scoliosis I have some direct experience. My son actually has a scoliosis, with a 30 degree lateral curve in his spine.

In X-Ray it looks quite shocking, but to see him in the flesh, he looks perfectly normal and you would never guess he had any problem at all, except that when he bends over the muscles on one side curves a little more than the left. He's 6ft tall, slim and athletic.

I suspect Richard's scoliosis was more severe, but even so, it will look a lot worse when just staring at his bones than it would have done when they were clothed in flesh. I can believe, going by my son's example, it might have been barely or only slightly noticeable.




--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> The Smithsonian has lots of Native American bones. Some have been returned to the tribes for burial, but more is in storage than is on display.... Probably the same for most large museums.
> P
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "George Butterfield" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
> university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
> academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
> knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
> be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
> Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.
>
> All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
> that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
> that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
> his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.
>
> George
>
> From:
> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
> box for too long......Eileen
>
> --- In
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> > to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
> dead
> > and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> > having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
>
> > [mailto:
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> > To:
>
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
> Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> > credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> > was.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> > doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> > gnawing to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> > detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> > description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> > had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
> then
> > gradually exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> > Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> > original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> > been anything wrong with him.
> > > >
> > > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
> Rous,
> > writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> > Richard's arms or hands.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> > describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> > invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
> Bosworth
> > and never saw Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
> needs
> > further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> > Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> > (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> > River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> > basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> > manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> > thought of it.
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
> that
> > our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> What's the date comparison on More's novel (let's call it what it is) and the broken sword painting (where his left hand was originally depicted as a severely deformed stump and then later repainted with... well, we'll charitably call it an attempt at a hand).

Carol responds:

"Novel" is a good term for it. Too bad most college English professors (at least in the U.S.) think that the English novel began in the eighteenth century and think that More was a humanist historian! (Have they forgotten that he also wrote "Utopia"?)

To answer your question, More composed his "History" in 13 but it wasn't published until 1543 (in a corrupt version, reprinted in 1548 as part of Hall's Chronicle, the version Shakespeare would have seen, and a corrected version in 1557. For those interested, the American branch has several articles relating to More's so-called history. You can access them here:

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html

"The Broken Sword" painting has been dated to about 1523, but that can't be correct since tree-ring analysis of the wood indicates that the tree was cut down after 1550, which means that it was influenced by More via Hall (1542) or Grafton (1543). Apparently, someone in the eighteenth century tried to "undo" the withered arm by overpainting it (rather refreshing in view of the fact that most R III paintings were altered to make him look more hunchbacked and villainous), which is probably why the hand is so clumsily painted.

http://makinghistory.sal.org.uk/page.php?cat=2

Anyway, the face in the Broken Sword painting may be influenced by that in the lost original of the Society of Antiquaries and/or the National Portrait Gallery paintings. Interestingly, the painter seems to have known that Richard was only thirty-two when he died. But the "withered arm" means that it could not have been painted before 1543 and the tree-ring dating shows that it is no earlier than 1550. Since the wood was shipped from the Baltic, and perhaps lay in storage before the artist bought it, it could be a few years later. Regardless, it reflects More's influence as the copies of earlier portraits, even the deliberately distorted ones, do not (though the later paintings and alterations reflect Rous or Vergil.

Note to Marie on "short face": it seems that Vergil read "curtam habiens faciem" to mean "short face" as he claimed that Richard had "little and fierce face" ("facie brevi ac truculenta"). The translation is from the TLS article by Sarah Knight and Mary Ann Lund that I cited earlier: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece

The ambiguity of Latin and the inexact art of translation strike again.

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > What's the date comparison on More's novel (let's call it what it is) and the broken sword painting (where his left hand was originally depicted as a severely deformed stump and then later repainted with... well, we'll charitably call it an attempt at a hand).
>
> Carol responds:
>
> "Novel" is a good term for it. Too bad most college English professors (at least in the U.S.) think that the English novel began in the eighteenth century and think that More was a humanist historian! (Have they forgotten that he also wrote "Utopia"?)
>
> To answer your question, More composed his "History" in 13 but it wasn't published until 1543 (in a corrupt version, reprinted in 1548 as part of Hall's Chronicle, the version Shakespeare would have seen, and a corrected version in 1557. For those interested, the American branch has several articles relating to More's so-called history. You can access them here:
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/more/index.html
>
> "The Broken Sword" painting has been dated to about 1523, but that can't be correct since tree-ring analysis of the wood indicates that the tree was cut down after 1550, which means that it was influenced by More via Hall (1542) or Grafton (1543). Apparently, someone in the eighteenth century tried to "undo" the withered arm by overpainting it (rather refreshing in view of the fact that most R III paintings were altered to make him look more hunchbacked and villainous), which is probably why the hand is so clumsily painted.
>
> http://makinghistory.sal.org.uk/page.php?cat=2
>
> Anyway, the face in the Broken Sword painting may be influenced by that in the lost original of the Society of Antiquaries and/or the National Portrait Gallery paintings. Interestingly, the painter seems to have known that Richard was only thirty-two when he died. But the "withered arm" means that it could not have been painted before 1543 and the tree-ring dating shows that it is no earlier than 1550. Since the wood was shipped from the Baltic, and perhaps lay in storage before the artist bought it, it could be a few years later. Regardless, it reflects More's influence as the copies of earlier portraits, even the deliberately distorted ones, do not (though the later paintings and alterations reflect Rous or Vergil.
>
> Note to Marie on "short face": it seems that Vergil read "curtam habiens faciem" to mean "short face" as he claimed that Richard had "little and fierce face" ("facie brevi ac truculenta"). The translation is from the TLS article by Sarah Knight and Mary Ann Lund that I cited earlier: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> The ambiguity of Latin and the inexact art of translation strike again.
>
> Carol
>

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth? [snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so, his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

Wednesday:

Just in case you have not seen this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4



This gives you a good idea what real armor is like



Geoge



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
Reputation





Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of
the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in
steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're
doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can,
and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth?
[snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to
my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated
destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war
horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so,
his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.

Carol responds:

Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.

My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.

As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.

Carol

Hilary wrote:
>
> Just realised Carol - the one person who had met Richard in the flesh and could have easily said something was Louis XI of France in 1475 when Richard was made to go and meet him to do penance for not attending the Treaty of Picquigny. Now Louis was no lover of Richard and I know he died just before Richard but wouldn't Richard's 'affliction' be mentioned somewhere in France? I agree it could have worsened since 1475 but Louis's spies would have made sure he knew about that.

Carol responds:

I thought about that, too. The Spider King could and would have used any deformity against him from Picquigny onward, but he didn't. And neither did Philippe de Commynes, one of his advisers, who saw all three brothers at Picquigny and either believed that Richard had murdered his nephews or chose to spread the rumor that he did, but says no word about his appearance.

It all starts with Rous and spirals out of control from there.

Carol

--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Oh, I know the withered arm shows up out of nowhere in More. I'm just wondering if that was a little bit of cheeky embroidery, so to speak, based on that portrait or something. But it's the portrait that makes me wonder, really, much more than More (and the firsthand understanding of the possible condition adds some personal investment to the whole thing, I'll admit).

Carol responds:

But the "portrait" comes after, and is based on, More's "History." The wood dates to 1550. Nothing of the sort appears anywhere before More's bit of fiction was published.

BTW, have you read More's "History," Hilary? It's as full of holes as a collander, not to mention the contradictions, ironic asides, and provable falsehoods, of which the withered arm is the most infamous. It was invented for one reason, to make Richard's accusation of Elizabeth Woodville as plotting against his life) appear to be a completely false accusation of having withered his arm through sorcery, which in turn makes his execution of Hastings look like baseless, premeditated murder.

You do Richard no favor by trying to find a factual basis for that malicious but all too memorable bit of fiction. if you haven't read More, I think you should.

Carol

This i confusing. You buy hunchback and serious disability? Oh it is the
lack of punctuation. I see. At first read it looks as if you indeed buy
into the legends!
Paul

On 14/02/2013 20:47, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Here's where I am:
>
> Mild scoliosis with one shoulder slightly higher than the other (for whatever reason) - I buy
> Hunchback and seriously disabled, withered arms etc - the fact that he walked this earth for 32 years and no-one, friend, foe, foreigner, cleric drew attention to this major disability in his lifetime - I don't buy and will take a lot of convincing
>
> And I too am so fed up with chewing on the bones rather than trying to sort out an explanation from Univ of Leics.
>
> H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 20:39
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he was.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>> Megan Lerseth wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
>>>
>>> There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
>>>
>>> Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
>>>
>>> Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
>>>
>>> With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It came from Richardson's 'Parson of Blokesworth' you know an ordinary sort of chap made good. I don't have him as a Cromwell (Thomas) despite the fork. I have him more as 'never trust a smiling cat' - but that's just me.  Yes I did say supposed piety for MB, as you say in many ways a sad lady.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:45
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.

Carol responds:

Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.

My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.

As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.

Carol

Thanks for this.  If only people really understood what it meant instead of saying "oh he's a hunchback" .  I'm quite surprised people with scoliosis aren't being more vocal about this.
 
 
From: angelalice75 <angelalice5657@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 23:37
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 
About scoliosis I have some direct experience. My son actually has a scoliosis, with a 30 degree lateral curve in his spine.

In X-Ray it looks quite shocking, but to see him in the flesh, he looks perfectly normal and you would never guess he had any problem at all, except that when he bends over the muscles on one side curves a little more than the left. He's 6ft tall, slim and athletic.

I suspect Richard's scoliosis was more severe, but even so, it will look a lot worse when just staring at his bones than it would have done when they were clothed in flesh. I can believe, going by my son's example, it might have been barely or only slightly noticeable.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> The Smithsonian has lots of Native American bones. Some have been returned to the tribes for burial, but more is in storage than is on display.... Probably the same for most large museums.
> P
>
> On Feb 14, 2013, at 3:05 PM, "George Butterfield" > wrote:
>
>
>
> I know that it must appear that way, however if you go to the vaults of any
> university or major museum you will find boxes and boxes of remains. The
> academics have a once in a lifetime opportunity of getting every scrap of
> knowledge from his remains. They are not the ones suggesting that he should
> be placed on view probably the Daily Mail or Sun as well as the local
> Leicestershire rag so let's keep it in proportion.
>
> All those with immediate concern over his remains have stated repeatedly
> that they will be reinterred all the rest is supposition. They have said
> that they will rebury them and it will take some time to build /consecrate
> his tomb as well as the arrangements for his internment.
>
> George
>
> From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> Reputation
>
> I dont care George...Im sorry...but he has been lying around in a cardboard
> box for too long......Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> , "George Butterfield"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is another very good reason why it is in the societies best interests
> > to keep a facsimile of Richards remains, down the road when we are all
> dead
> > and gone some Shakespearian nut will say that the tales were true etc. And
> > having physical evidence will refute this even before it starts.
> >
> >
> >
> > George
> >
> >
> >
> > From: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > [mailto:mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ] On Behalf Of EileenB
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 3:39 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and
> Richard's
> > Reputation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give
> > credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he
> > was.....Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , "mairemulholland" wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it
> > doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone
> > gnawing to me. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>
> > , "justcarol67" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > > >[snip]
> > > >
> > > > > I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical
> > detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary
> > description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just
> > had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed,
> then
> > gradually exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait
> > Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost
> > original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there
> > been anything wrong with him.
> > > >
> > > > There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile
> Rous,
> > writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with
> > Richard's arms or hands.
> > > >
> > > > Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More
> > describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the
> > invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of
> Bosworth
> > and never saw Richard.
> > > >
> > > > Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that
> needs
> > further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early
> > Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder
> > (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the
> > River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no
> > basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's
> > manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have
> > thought of it.
> > > >
> > > > With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering
> that
> > our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
> > > >
> > > > Carol
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:
> Note to Marie on "short face": it seems that Vergil read "curtam habiens faciem" to mean "short face" as he claimed that Richard had "little and fierce face" ("facie brevi ac truculenta"). The translation is from the TLS article by Sarah Knight and Mary Ann Lund that I cited earlier: http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> The ambiguity of Latin and the inexact art of translation strike again.
>
> Carol
>


Marie replies:
That's very interesting, not least because Vergil "corrected" Rous' 'curtam' to 'brevi' - ie he ditched Rous' use of the word 'curtus' meaning shortened or deficient and replaced it with 'brevis', the normal word for 'short'. This suggests to me that, whilst Vergil understood Rous to have meant 'having a short face' he found his choice of vocabulary odd.
Psychologically, Vergil may have tended to the "short face" translation of Rous' words because otherwise he would have had no description of Richard's face - the most important part of his appearance - to draw on.
Ironically, I suspect that modern translators of Rous have probably taken their cue from Vergil as to how to translate this phrase, so that we go round in circles.
At any rate, we now have proof that Richard did not have a short face because whatever that is it surely requires a small, more horizontal, jaw.
Marie

 Is it NOT likely that BOTH Armour & Clothing [Especially that made for 'Top People'] to attend the Court of most important 'Rival monarch' may be 'Tailor Made' to a VERY HIGH standard?

As well as 'Functionality,' such tailoring would be to 'Flatter' & of course CONCEAL any bodily abnormalities.                                                                   
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

  Because of the 'Exercise of the 'Knightly Arts' it is perhaps likely that the development of the sword wielding arm would be disproportionately developed as was the case in Archers. [The Skeletal remains in a 'Mass Grave' at Towton bear this out.] 
Such a 'Hypertrophy' might, when accompanied by 'Scoliosis,' be more noticeable.     
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.

In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen





--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
>
> My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
>
> As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
>
> Carol
>

Must be the punctuation Paul, apologies!
I buy hardly discernable scoliosis (eg uneven shoulders)
I DON'T buy serious disability eg hunchback because no contemporary of whatever persuasion reports it. Does that make more sense?  H.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 8:52
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

This i confusing. You buy hunchback and serious disability? Oh it is the
lack of punctuation. I see. At first read it looks as if you indeed buy
into the legends!
Paul

On 14/02/2013 20:47, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Here's where I am:
>
> Mild scoliosis with one shoulder slightly higher than the other (for whatever reason) - I buy
> Hunchback and seriously disabled, withered arms etc - the fact that he walked this earth for 32 years and no-one, friend, foe, foreigner, cleric drew attention to this major disability in his lifetime - I don't buy and will take a lot of convincing
>
> And I too am so fed up with chewing on the bones rather than trying to sort out an explanation from Univ of Leics.
>
> H.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 February 2013, 20:39
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
>
>
> Maire....I have to say I agree with you...Its almost like trying to give credence to More's ludicrous story....What a bloody old lier he was.....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "mairemulholland" wrote:
>> I don't understand some of these discussions. We have his skeleton - it doesn't show any "disfigurement" except for the scoliosis. It's more bone gnawing to me. Maire.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>> Megan Lerseth wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>> I don't know. It just strikes me as the kind of inobtrusive physical detail that might have not even merited a mention in a contemporary description but might have ended up mentioned later on by someone who just had a vague firsthand memory of his hand kind of folding when relaxed, then gradually exaggerated.
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> Megan, have you looked at his delicate hands in the National Portrait Gallery and Society of Antiquaries portraits? Those are based on a lost original. His hands would not have been featured so prominently had there been anything wrong with him.
>>>
>>> There is no hint in any contemporary source, not even the hostile Rous, writing for Henry VII after Richard's death, of anything being wrong with Richard's arms or hands.
>>>
>>> Again, the skeleton is normal, and again, the withered arm (which More describes as small and shriveled, not some minor disability), is the invention of Sir Thomas More, who was a small child at the time of Bosworth and never saw Richard.
>>>
>>> Besides showing that the "hunchback" was scoliosis, a finding that needs further investigation because the contemporary sources and even the early Tudor sources either do not mention it or speak only of a raised shoulder (Rous), the scientific findings disprove two myths: the body dumped in the River Soar and the withered arm, which was nonexistent. There is simply no basis--none--for the idea that he had a withered arm. If Sir Thomas More's manuscript had been lost, no one, including Shakespeare, would ever have thought of it.
>>>
>>> With all due respect, I ask that you drop the subject, remembering that our posts are accessible to anyone who Googles the topic.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I think a professional assessment of the degree of curvature is needed. As I said before, my middle son has a 30 degree scoliosis and this is *completely* undetectable even when he is unclothed. If we knew the degree of R's curvature then we could get a very good idea of his appearance by comparing it with modern examples, and the speculation could be put aside.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Is it NOT likely that BOTH Armour & Clothing [Especially that made for 'Top People'] to attend the Court of most important 'Rival monarch' may be 'Tailor Made' to a VERY HIGH standard?
>
> As well as 'Functionality,' such tailoring would be to 'Flatter' & of course CONCEAL any bodily abnormalities.                                                                   
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>

Do you mean Megan, not me? Yes I've read More and tend towards the conclusion it was probably a satire written for his own pleasure and never intended for publication (you can imagine Morton whispering in his ear as a young man all these tales, which got more and more embroidered down the years and More thinking what an idiot).



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 2:10
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> Oh, I know the withered arm shows up out of nowhere in More. I'm just wondering if that was a little bit of cheeky embroidery, so to speak, based on that portrait or something. But it's the portrait that makes me wonder, really, much more than More (and the firsthand understanding of the possible condition adds some personal investment to the whole thing, I'll admit).

Carol responds:

But the "portrait" comes after, and is based on, More's "History." The wood dates to 1550. Nothing of the sort appears anywhere before More's bit of fiction was published.

BTW, have you read More's "History," Hilary? It's as full of holes as a collander, not to mention the contradictions, ironic asides, and provable falsehoods, of which the withered arm is the most infamous. It was invented for one reason, to make Richard's accusation of Elizabeth Woodville as plotting against his life) appear to be a completely false accusation of having withered his arm through sorcery, which in turn makes his execution of Hastings look like baseless, premeditated murder.

You do Richard no favor by trying to find a factual basis for that malicious but all too memorable bit of fiction. if you haven't read More, I think you should.

Carol

Hadn't shields died out by then?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:11
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth? [snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so, his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
 

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 

Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.

In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
>
> My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
>
> As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
>
> Carol
>

Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
>
>
> Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.
>
> In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
> >
> > My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
> >
> > As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>

I agree. I often wondered if she was really happy when he became king and indeed if he was happy with her, he hadn't seen her for years. She was clearly a control freak from her attitude to EOY and EW. And H7 never escaped her. In another scenario one could have pitied him.



________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she.  Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
> 
>
> Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.
>
> In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
> >
> > My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
> >
> > As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>







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

Yahoo! Groups Links

I think it's quite easy to pity Henry VII.  He must have spent his entire life consumed by fear.  His youth was spent on the run and I'm sure he thought he'd probably die at Bosworth.  His unlikely survival, far from being a relief, seemed to reinforce a belief that he could never rest, never relax his grip, until eventually he died old before his time, distanced from his subjects and mourned, it seems, by hardly anyone.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 
I agree. I often wondered if she was really happy when he became king and indeed if he was happy with her, he hadn't seen her for years. She was clearly a control freak from her attitude to EOY and EW. And H7 never escaped her. In another scenario one could have pitied him.

________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she.  Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
> 
>
> Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.
>
> In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
> >
> > My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
> >
> > As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In , eileen bates <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.

Marie replies:
The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.

I do so agree. He is far more pitiable than his son.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:55
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

I think it's quite easy to pity Henry VII.  He must have spent his entire life consumed by fear.  His youth was spent on the run and I'm sure he thought he'd probably die at Bosworth.  His unlikely survival, far from being a relief, seemed to reinforce a belief that he could never rest, never relax his grip, until eventually he died old before his time, distanced from his subjects and mourned, it seems, by hardly anyone.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:44
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 
I agree. I often wondered if she was really happy when he became king and indeed if he was happy with her, he hadn't seen her for years. She was clearly a control freak from her attitude to EOY and EW. And H7 never escaped her. In another scenario one could have pitied him.

________________________________
From: eileen bates eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she.  Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:

> Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
> 
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
> 
>
> Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.
>
> In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
> >
> > My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
> >
> > As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , eileen bates wrote:
>
> Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.

Marie replies:
The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It came from Richardson's 'Parson of Blokesworth' you know an ordinary sort of chap made good. I don't have him as a Cromwell (Thomas) despite the fork. I have him more as 'never trust a smiling cat' - but that's just me.  Yes I did say supposed piety for MB, as you say in many ways a sad lady.

Carol responds:

"Smile and smile and be a villain"? Wrong play, wrong character, but it would fit that view of him. However, I see him as a poker-faced, slightly sardonic old man of whom Richard was instinctively leery.

I don't know anything about Richardson's "Parson of Blokeworth." Do you mean Samuel Richardson, the nineteenth-century noelist? He would undoubtedly have been influenced by More and/or Shakespeare. I've forgotten how Shakespeare characterizes Morton as I can't bring myself to reread or watch any of his history plays. The Henry VI depictions of Gloucester are as bad as, though less famous than, Richard III itself and some elements are absurdly anachronistic, for which we can partly blame More (Edward died at 53) and Hall (Edmund was murdered at twelve). No wonder Shakespeare's Richard fights in battles that occurred when he was a child.

Carol

Carol

Oh, absolutely. No sympathy at all for either Henry VIII or Henry V. England's two monster kings.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

No Geoffrey Richardson in the Deceivers  'his common designation was the Parson of Blokesworth'. I'll come back to you with the references, which he quotes.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It came from Richardson's 'Parson of Blokesworth' you know an ordinary sort of chap made good. I don't have him as a Cromwell (Thomas) despite the fork. I have him more as 'never trust a smiling cat' - but that's just me.  Yes I did say supposed piety for MB, as you say in many ways a sad lady.

Carol responds:

"Smile and smile and be a villain"? Wrong play, wrong character, but it would fit that view of him. However, I see him as a poker-faced, slightly sardonic old man of whom Richard was instinctively leery.

I don't know anything about Richardson's "Parson of Blokeworth." Do you mean Samuel Richardson, the nineteenth-century noelist? He would undoubtedly have been influenced by More and/or Shakespeare. I've forgotten how Shakespeare characterizes Morton as I can't bring myself to reread or watch any of his history plays. The Henry VI depictions of Gloucester are as bad as, though less famous than, Richard III itself and some elements are absurdly anachronistic, for which we can partly blame More (Edward died at 53) and Hall (Edmund was murdered at twelve). No wonder Shakespeare's Richard fights in battles that occurred when he was a child.

Carol

Carol

I so agree about HV too - what a disillusionment that proved when investigated. And how unjust is history because of the Bard.



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Oh, absolutely. No sympathy at all for either Henry VIII or Henry V. England's two monster kings.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Poor old Shakespeare was just trying to make a living and keep Queen Elizabeth amused. I wonder how much factual evidence there was available to the "common man"? And even if there was enough available to exonerate Richard III, the Tudor monarch "would not be amused" and the Bard might have found himself headless!

On Feb 15, 2013, at 11:52 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



I so agree about HV too - what a disillusionment that proved when investigated. And how unjust is history because of the Bard.

________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@...<mailto:jmcevans98%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:40
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Oh, absolutely. No sympathy at all for either Henry VIII or Henry V. England's two monster kings.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?

Marie replies:-

They all say they leave money, or whatever was the custom in their locality, "for tithes forgotten or negligently witholden" or some such phrase. What does MB's will actually say? It's not one I've looked at.
She wouldn't be in a state because she was behind with her tithes even if she was, because she left the money to pay them. And I guess leaving the church something to cover forgotten tithes wouldn't have become almost obligatory unless people tended to be behind with them. The notion seemed to be that as long as you put debts right at your death that was okay. 15th century people lived in debt to each other - it was normal. Making a will that settled all your earthly obligations was regarded as part and parcel of making the 'good death'.

These are two rather different recollections of Margaret's deathbed scene (From Jones & Underwood, 'The King's Mother'):
1) By John Fisher. When the last rites were administered to her 'with all her herte and soule she raysed her body... and confessed assuredly that in that sacrament was conteyned Chryst Jhesu, the Sone of God, that dyed for wretched Synners uon the Crosse, in whome holly she put her truste and confydence.'
2) From Reginald Pole. Weeping many tears as she was dying, Margaret commended the young king to Fisher's guidance, fearing that the adolescent Henry, left in supreme authority, would easily turn his face from God.
So according to Pole it was Henry VIII's soul she was afraid for, not her own. Sounds like the wisdom of hindsight, though.


Are the wills you have looked at the originals or printed copies?

Marie


>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> > On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.
>
> Marie replies:
> The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
> Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
> I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

> I can't bring myself to reread or watch any of his history plays

Really?  Not any of them?  But do you like other Shakespeare plays?  If so, you're denying yourself something wonderful.  Forget 'Richard III'; the two 'Henry IV' plays arguably stand, alongside 'Lear' and 'Antony & Cleopatra', as Shakespeare's crowning achievement (no pun intended).

The trick is to accept that although they may, at least in some productions, be *about* history (there was a fabulous RSC 'Richard II' in the late eighties that depicted modern realpolitique supplanting divine right by gradually changing costume and weapons as Bolingbroke's grip on power tightened, e.g. longbows replaced with rifles; candles with strip-lighting), they are not *history* themselves, and nor are they particularly meant to be.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 


--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It came from Richardson's 'Parson of Blokesworth' you know an ordinary sort of chap made good. I don't have him as a Cromwell (Thomas) despite the fork. I have him more as 'never trust a smiling cat' - but that's just me.  Yes I did say supposed piety for MB, as you say in many ways a sad lady.

Carol responds:

"Smile and smile and be a villain"? Wrong play, wrong character, but it would fit that view of him. However, I see him as a poker-faced, slightly sardonic old man of whom Richard was instinctively leery.

I don't know anything about Richardson's "Parson of Blokeworth." Do you mean Samuel Richardson, the nineteenth-century noelist? He would undoubtedly have been influenced by More and/or Shakespeare. I've forgotten how Shakespeare characterizes Morton as I can't bring myself to reread or watch any of his history plays. The Henry VI depictions of Gloucester are as bad as, though less famous than, Richard III itself and some elements are absurdly anachronistic, for which we can partly blame More (Edward died at 53) and Hall (Edmund was murdered at twelve). No wonder Shakespeare's Richard fights in battles that occurred when he was a child.

Carol

Carol

Shields were obsolete by the 15th century, as full plate armour rendered them useless. 

A man much preferred to have both hands free. Warhammers were needed to break through steel plate, so swords had also become symbolic of nobility rather than deadly weapons.


________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation


 
Hadn't shields died out by then?

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:11
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth? [snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so, his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

Though shields had died out for knights archers still had them along with a wooden spike or post . This description details the use of shields with crossbows in an Italian campaign, however a similar plain shield was used with long bowmen. I have seen reports of a smaller sort of shield being used during the English Civil War with musketry a gun or musket shield can be seen dating from Henry VIII in the Royal Amouries.



http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/publications/what-we-do/publications/new-publications/single-image/1213



The Pavise was the name given to the shields used by the Crossbow men. The word 'pavise' originates from Pavia, in Italy, where pavise shields were originally made. On the battlefield the English Medieval crossbowman was particularly vulnerable when he was reloading his crossbow. Crossbowmen therefore protected themselves with a tall shield which was known as a pavise. The crossbowman would duck behind the pavise to re-load his crossbow during a battle. The pavise was a a large convex shield, measuring 4 to 5 ft. high and broad enough to cover the entire body. A pavise shield would be carried slung on the back of the crossbowman. These shields were then propped up in front of them, in a permanent position, before the Medieval battle commenced. The pavise shields of the crossbowman could also be used as defensive screen formed by linking pavise shields together. Such a defensive screen was known as a 'Pavisade'. These shields were also known as Wall Shields. The Medieval era of the Middle Ages was strongly religious. English Crossbowman would have fought in crusades, as well as battles in England. Many Pavise shields were therefore painted with religious scenes. The crossbow archers hoped that the enemy would believe that they were committing a sacrilegious act if the Holy images on the shields were damaged.



You could also argue that they have never gone out of fashion take a look at a police anti-riot squad!

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation





Shields were obsolete by the 15th century, as full plate armour rendered them useless.

A man much preferred to have both hands free. Warhammers were needed to break through steel plate, so swords had also become symbolic of nobility rather than deadly weapons.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... <mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Hadn't shields died out by then?

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:11
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth? [snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so, his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

Originals Marie. For my sins I spend a fair bit of time in record offices. Poor Margaret, she was right to weep for Henry - love it!



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 19:02
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?

Marie replies:-

They all say they leave money, or whatever was the custom in their locality, "for tithes forgotten or negligently witholden" or some such phrase. What does MB's will actually say? It's not one I've looked at.
She wouldn't be in a state because she was behind with her tithes even if she was, because she left the money to pay them. And I guess leaving the church something to cover forgotten tithes wouldn't have become almost obligatory unless people tended to be behind with them. The notion seemed to be that as long as you put debts right at your death that was okay. 15th century people lived in debt to each other - it was normal. Making a will that settled all your earthly obligations was regarded as part and parcel of making the 'good death'.

These are two rather different recollections of Margaret's deathbed scene (From Jones & Underwood, 'The King's Mother'):
1) By John Fisher. When the last rites were administered to her 'with all her herte and soule she raysed her body... and confessed assuredly that in that sacrament was conteyned Chryst Jhesu, the Sone of God, that dyed for wretched Synners uon the Crosse, in whome holly she put her truste and confydence.'
2) From Reginald Pole. Weeping many tears as she was dying, Margaret commended the young king to Fisher's guidance, fearing that the adolescent Henry, left in supreme authority, would easily turn his face from God.
So according to Pole it was Henry VIII's soul she was afraid for, not her own. Sounds like the wisdom of hindsight, though.

Are the wills you have looked at the originals or printed copies?

Marie

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> >
> > Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> > On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.
>
> Marie replies:
> The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
> Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
> I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.
>
>
>
>
>
>

True - you should run your own course. Methinks we have a lot to learn in this area and have been a bit 'misled' by those who write about the battles of TWOR. 



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 19:49
Subject: RE: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Though shields had died out for knights archers still had them along with a wooden spike or post . This description details the use of shields with crossbows in an Italian campaign, however a similar plain shield was used with long bowmen. I have seen reports of a smaller sort of shield being used during the English Civil War with musketry a gun or musket shield can be seen dating from Henry VIII in the Royal Amouries.

http://www.royalarmouries.org/what-we-do/publications/what-we-do/publications/new-publications/single-image/1213

The Pavise was the name given to the shields used by the Crossbow men. The word 'pavise' originates from Pavia, in Italy, where pavise shields were originally made. On the battlefield the English Medieval crossbowman was particularly vulnerable when he was reloading his crossbow. Crossbowmen therefore protected themselves with a tall shield which was known as a pavise. The crossbowman would duck behind the pavise to re-load his crossbow during a battle. The pavise was a a large convex shield, measuring 4 to 5 ft. high and broad enough to cover the entire body. A pavise shield would be carried slung on the back of the crossbowman. These shields were then propped up in front of them, in a permanent position, before the Medieval battle commenced. The pavise shields of the crossbowman could also be used as defensive screen formed by linking pavise shields together. Such a defensive screen was known as a 'Pavisade'. These shields were also known as Wall
Shields. The Medieval era of the Middle Ages was strongly religious. English Crossbowman would have fought in crusades, as well as battles in England. Many Pavise shields were therefore painted with religious scenes. The crossbow archers hoped that the enemy would believe that they were committing a sacrilegious act if the Holy images on the shields were damaged.

You could also argue that they have never gone out of fashion take a look at a police anti-riot squad!

George

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 2:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Shields were obsolete by the 15th century, as full plate armour rendered them useless.

A man much preferred to have both hands free. Warhammers were needed to break through steel plate, so swords had also become symbolic of nobility rather than deadly weapons.

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... >
To: " " >
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:31
Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Hadn't shields died out by then?

________________________________
From: justcarol67 justcarol67@... >
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 1:11
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

Wednesday wrote:
>
> I agree with everything you've said outside a battle. But I think most of the subtle aids would be impossible to use when a man's entirely encased in steel and not even his gauntleted fingers can subtly control what they're doing. How do you dance with your partner when you're wrapped in a tin can, and so is he, and the tips of your fingers can't really even feel his mouth? [snip]

Carol responds:

Excellent and informative post though I confess that the image it brought to my mind was of the Tin Woodman riding into battle mounted on an armor-plated destrier.

I just have one question. In addition to having to control a fierce war horse with his left hand, wouldn't a knight also be holding a shield? If so, his left hand would have to be as strong as his right.

Carol

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Do you mean Megan, not me? Yes I've read More and tend towards the conclusion it was probably a satire written for his own pleasure and never intended for publication (you can imagine Morton whispering in his ear as a young man all these tales, which got more and more embroidered down the years and More thinking what an idiot).
>
Carol responds:

Yes. My apologies to both of you. (Mea culpa; I've been known to call my grandson by his mother's name!) I was responding to Megan's ideas about "The Broken Sword" portrait and Richard's arm and wondered if she had read More (or how she perceived it as she read it). I share your view of More as a satire or parody. Audrey Williamson mentions a letter from Vergil to More in which Vergil thinks that More is provoked with him for some reason. Hanham, whom I don't always agree with, seems to be on the right track with regard to More though it's been ages since I read her book. Jeremy Potter seems to hold a similar view. The problem is that specialists in More don't agree, and they're the supposed authorities. (I think it stems from the idea that "the sainted Sir Thomas" wouldn't invent details--wrong--and from an inability to see his wickedly ironic sense of humor. I also think it stems in part from making Tudor studies a separate field from Yorkist and Lancastrian studies, as if the Middle Ages ended with Richard and the modern era--us--began with the Tudors, which would make the Tudors "relevant" (an American buzzword, don't know if it's used much in he UK) and Richard and everyone before him "irrelevant."

Can't follow up on this interesting topic now as I am still on yesterday's posts!

Carol

Lucky you, actually! Can you possibly quote me Margaret Beaufort's bequest of tithe money?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Originals Marie. For my sins I spend a fair bit of time in record offices. Poor Margaret, she was right to weep for Henry - love it!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?
>
> Marie replies:-
>
> They all say they leave money, or whatever was the custom in their locality, "for tithes forgotten or negligently witholden" or some such phrase. What does MB's will actually say? It's not one I've looked at.
> She wouldn't be in a state because she was behind with her tithes even if she was, because she left the money to pay them. And I guess leaving the church something to cover forgotten tithes wouldn't have become almost obligatory unless people tended to be behind with them. The notion seemed to be that as long as you put debts right at your death that was okay. 15th century people lived in debt to each other - it was normal. Making a will that settled all your earthly obligations was regarded as part and parcel of making the 'good death'.
>
> These are two rather different recollections of Margaret's deathbed scene (From Jones & Underwood, 'The King's Mother'):
> 1) By John Fisher. When the last rites were administered to her 'with all her herte and soule she raysed her body... and confessed assuredly that in that sacrament was conteyned Chryst Jhesu, the Sone of God, that dyed for wretched Synners uon the Crosse, in whome holly she put her truste and confydence.'
> 2) From Reginald Pole. Weeping many tears as she was dying, Margaret commended the young king to Fisher's guidance, fearing that the adolescent Henry, left in supreme authority, would easily turn his face from God.
> So according to Pole it was Henry VIII's soul she was afraid for, not her own. Sounds like the wisdom of hindsight, though.
>
> Are the wills you have looked at the originals or printed copies?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> > > On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
> > Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
> > I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Arthur wrote:
>
>   Because of the 'Exercise of the 'Knightly Arts' it is perhaps likely that the development of the sword wielding arm would be disproportionately developed as was the case in Archers. [The Skeletal remains in a 'Mass Grave' at Towton bear this out.] 
> Such a 'Hypertrophy' might, when accompanied by 'Scoliosis,' be more noticeable.     

Carol responds:

Except that the Leicester team states that there is no noticeable difference in his arms. Maybe a forensic anthropologist could detect it, but it isn't visible to my eyes. Possibly a difference in the shoulders as noted by Rous (but no other contemporary chronicler). I suspect that the experts who analyzed the Towton skeletons will want to examine Richard. If so, I'll wait for their comments before making any assumptions.

Carol

Carol, I am almost sure that Dr. Appleby showed a difference in the shoulders. But, I am so unsure of the good doc and her technique, that I hate to quote her as saying anything..... I would love to see other noted specialists take on the skeletal remains.

On Feb 15, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Arthur wrote:
>
> Because of the 'Exercise of the 'Knightly Arts' it is perhaps likely that the development of the sword wielding arm would be disproportionately developed as was the case in Archers. [The Skeletal remains in a 'Mass Grave' at Towton bear this out.]
> Such a 'Hypertrophy' might, when accompanied by 'Scoliosis,' be more noticeable.

Carol responds:

Except that the Leicester team states that there is no noticeable difference in his arms. Maybe a forensic anthropologist could detect it, but it isn't visible to my eyes. Possibly a difference in the shoulders as noted by Rous (but no other contemporary chronicler). I suspect that the experts who analyzed the Towton skeletons will want to examine Richard. If so, I'll wait for their comments before making any assumptions.

Carol

Marie wrote:
> That's very interesting, not least because Vergil "corrected" Rous' 'curtam' to 'brevi' - ie he ditched Rous' use of the word 'curtus' meaning shortened or deficient and replaced it with 'brevis', the normal word for 'short'. This suggests to me that, whilst Vergil understood Rous to have meant 'having a short face' he found his choice of vocabulary odd.
> Psychologically, Vergil may have tended to the "short face" translation of Rous' words because otherwise he would have had no description of Richard's face - the most important part of his appearance - to draw on.
> Ironically, I suspect that modern translators of Rous have probably taken their cue from Vergil as to how to translate this phrase, so that we go round in circles.
[snip]

Carol responds:

My thoughts exactly. It just shows the need to start from scratch with new translations that don't depend on each other or have notes to point this sort of circular mistake. So, a translation of Rous would have his apparent intended meaning with a note on why "short face" (the usual translation) is clearly wrong and influenced by Vergil, who in turn was "improving" Rous by mistranslating him. The note in Vergil would explain where he got this idea and why it's wrong.

Current scholarship depends on flawed translations, setting aside any flaws in the sources themselves.

Carol

Carol earlier:
> > I can't bring myself to reread or watch any of his history plays

Jonathan Evans responded:
>
> Really?  Not any of them?  But do you like other Shakespeare plays?  If so, you're denying yourself something wonderful.  Forget 'Richard III'; the two 'Henry IV' plays arguably stand, alongside 'Lear' and 'Antony & Cleopatra', as Shakespeare's crowning achievement (no pun intended).
>
> The trick is to accept that although they may, at least in some productions, be *about* history (there was a fabulous RSC 'Richard II' in the late eighties that depicted modern realpolitique supplanting divine right by gradually changing costume and weapons as Bolingbroke's grip on power tightened, e.g. longbows replaced with rifles; candles with strip-lighting), they are not *history* themselves, and nor are they particularly meant to be.

Carol responds:

Hi, Jonathan. I read all of them, even "Titus Andronicus," in graduate school. I love and have taught "Midsummer Night's Dream.
I also love "Romeo and Juliet" (my grandson hates Shakespeare for killing them!), "The Tempest," and most of the romantic comedies. I have mixed feelings about "The Merchant of Venice" (my sympathies are with Shylock). "Lear" is a masterpiece but I wouldn't count it (or "Antony and Cleopatra" as a history play in the sense that the Henry IV-Richard III cycle is regarded as being. I've read "Macbeth" and "Hamlet" too many times to count. I know that I read "King John" and "Henry VIII" (history plays but outside the cycle) once but have forgotten every word of either of them. "Richard II" I rather liked at the time but have not reread.

It's been a long time since I read the two Henry IV plays. I remember being very confused as to who was who the first time I read them, but I could give them another chance now, bearing in mind that his Hotspur is twenty years too young and his Prince Hal probably quite difference from (and more likeable than) the historical person. I remember Henry V more clearly but I'm afraid I now see Kenneth Branaugh when I try to read the play (an when I think of Henry V I think of his carelessness in dying young and leaving the throne to an infant, the burning of heretics, the polluting of the Lancastrian bloodline with madness through his marriage to Catherine of Valois, etc. Not one of my favorite kings. In fact, despite a touch of pity for Henry VI, I don't really like any of the Henrys.

To return to Shakespeare, I've also read all the sonnets multiple times. Snakespeare {I think I'll keep that typo} was a genius and his contributions to the English language and literature are incalculable, but I can't abide his treatment of Richard or get past the damage that it has done. I suspect that More's "History" (sainthood or not) would be less well known today and certainly much less influential if Shakespeare hadn't picked it up and expanded on it via Hall and Holinshed.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> True - you should run your own course. Methinks we have a lot to learn in this area and have been a bit 'misled' by those who write about the battles of TWOR. 

Carol responds:

For a split second, I thought you meant the War of the Rings!

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Carol, I am almost sure that Dr. Appleby showed a difference in the shoulders. But, I am so unsure of the good doc and her technique, that I hate to quote her as saying anything..... I would love to see other noted specialists take on the skeletal remains.

Carol responds:

She mentioned something about a shoulder blade being slightly deformed, but we were discussing his arms, not his shoulders. In any case, whatever she was seeing could have been a battle injury or damage to the skeleton post-burial. Someone on this list pointed out that the bones *must* have shifted in the grave or the sternum wouldn't be missing.

I feel the same way as you appear to about Jo (the-skull-isn't-where-it-ought-to-be-so-I-think-I'll-use-a-mattock) Appleby--I half suspect that she was seeing "deformity" in the shoulder because of Rous's one-shoulder-higher-than-the-other description rather as Wright and Tanner saw marks of "suffocation" on "Edward V's" skull when they examined the bones in the urn with More's Babes-in-the-Woods fairytale in their minds as established fact. In other words, I think she may have been working backwards, "knowing" that he had a raised shoulder and finding evidence for it just as they found "evidence" for suffocation that has since been disproved. But even she could find nothing wrong with the arms except their "feminine" delicacy.

I absolutely can't wait until other specialists examine the remains; the sooner, the better. And the need to be independent specialists with no stake in Leicester University's sudden and unexpected rise to fame.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:


"I agree. I often wondered if she was really happy when he became king and
indeed if he was happy with her, he hadn't seen her for years. She was
clearly a control freak from her attitude to EOY and EW. And H7 never
escaped her. In another scenario one could have pitied him."

Perhaps it's a case of sublimation(?). MB seems to have know her way around
the politics of the 15th century well enough. Maybe what she did was BECAUSE
she herself couldn't be monarch? It wouldn't be the first time a parent has
sacrificed a child to the parent's ambition.
Doug

Haven't looked at MB's - she's in the big league. I thought you could tell me more.  Don't spend as much time there as I once did as have to work again now.
 
One thing I have noticed though is archivists, like some archaeologists (JA for example) can become very desensified (is that the word?)from material they're working with. So when they hand you a will from 1650 all they see is a piece of paper, which is theirs (they are very possessive) and not to be damaged; they don't share your wonder at looking at the signature of a long dead xtimesgranddad. I suspect that has happened in the case of Jo. She's used to seeing piles of bones; this was just another set which unfortunately some emotional people are making a fuss over. I doubt she realises how dangerous her throw-away description has been. Whereas the guy who did the Towton bones analysis went to great lengths to say they were human beings and treated them with great respect. A rare man indeed.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:29
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation

 

Lucky you, actually! Can you possibly quote me Margaret Beaufort's bequest of tithe money?
Marie

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Originals Marie. For my sins I spend a fair bit of time in record offices. Poor Margaret, she was right to weep for Henry - love it!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>  
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?
>
> Marie replies:-
>
> They all say they leave money, or whatever was the custom in their locality, "for tithes forgotten or negligently witholden" or some such phrase. What does MB's will actually say? It's not one I've looked at.
> She wouldn't be in a state because she was behind with her tithes even if she was, because she left the money to pay them. And I guess leaving the church something to cover forgotten tithes wouldn't have become almost obligatory unless people tended to be behind with them. The notion seemed to be that as long as you put debts right at your death that was okay. 15th century people lived in debt to each other - it was normal. Making a will that settled all your earthly obligations was regarded as part and parcel of making the 'good death'.
>
> These are two rather different recollections of Margaret's deathbed scene (From Jones & Underwood, 'The King's Mother'):
> 1) By John Fisher. When the last rites were administered to her 'with all her herte and soule she raysed her body... and confessed assuredly that in that sacrament was conteyned Chryst Jhesu, the Sone of God, that dyed for wretched Synners uon the Crosse, in whome holly she put her truste and confydence.'
> 2) From Reginald Pole. Weeping many tears as she was dying, Margaret commended the young king to Fisher's guidance, fearing that the adolescent Henry, left in supreme authority, would easily turn his face from God.
> So according to Pole it was Henry VIII's soul she was afraid for, not her own. Sounds like the wisdom of hindsight, though.
>
> Are the wills you have looked at the originals or printed copies?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
> >
> > à
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> > > On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
> > Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
> > I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

The 'Tendency' to want to do good is NOT reserved for Richard's age, many people in this post Darwin age are drawn to this as the reaper approaches. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 16:24
>Subject: Re: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
> 
>Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses. A kind of insurance policy. I suppose somewhere in MB's scrambled brains she managed to reconcile destroying someone to achieve her aims. If you put her under torture she'd probably say she did it all for God.
> 
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 15:00
>Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
>
> 
>
>Were not the acts of piety performed by MB...and others of that time....just an insurance to hopefully avoid purgatory or at least make one's stay there brief and a quick entrance into Heaven.
>
>In any case pious acts and generally trying to help the poor and sick etc., were expected of the gentry and nobility until quite recently. Where I live the local lord and his family...Edward George Spencer-Church, who died in the 1960's gave enormous help to this village, including getting electricity for the village and building a brickworks so that the local men could get employment and so much more. His mother prior to that was often seen in the village in her pony and trap, taking food etc.,including a fur coverlet for a man who was old and ill... to the sick. This was expected of them and they expected to do so..Noblesse Oblige and all that. So MB's acts of piety...Im afraid they don't wash with me. She was instrumental in bringing Richard down...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > I was actually digging at MB's supposed piety, not Morton's. He was I recall from somewhere supposed to be quite a cheerful sort - you know the kind people like Buckingham gossiped with.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Morton a cheerful sort? That sounds like something out of More's "History." Mancini says he was steeped in court intrigue since Henry VI's time, and he's the notorious inventor of Morton's Fork who was, IIRC, greatly hated by the time of his death. As for Buckingham, we really don't know what he was like. Several people have theorized that he resembled George in some way to explain Richard's affection for him, but we just don't know.
>>
>> My idea of him is anything but cheerful and outwardly charming; more cunning and devious, someone that the open and honest Richard would instinctively fear. I know that's my emotions interfering with my reason, but I really know of no source (More is not a source, or at least not a reliable one) that even suggests a pleasant disposition for Morton. The thought of him sends shivers of revulsion down my back.
>>
>> As for Margaret's piety, I've always wondered how much of it was for show (and, of course, what else did she have to do once her career as an intriguer was over)? And she died about two months after Henry VII. He was her whole reason for living. I almost feel sorry for her. I would pity her early and probably painful childbirth, loss of her first husband, separation from her son, living for him and through him only to lose him again when he died--if only she hadn't placed her precious son, with his shred of a claim, and her vengeance against the House of York, above the good of the English nation. If only she hadn't been so instrumental in destroying Richard. Those two things turn any pity I would otherwise have felt for her to dust.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Maybe Rous was really intending to say, in some idiomatic fashion common to the time, "He had this deformed body," and Vergil read it years later and said, "'Short face'? Dude, your Latin is atrocious! We'll just clean that up a little bit."

Wouldn't be the first time that the key to a text is lost over a brief period of time: the Book of Revelation is often described as an allegory, complete with phonetic puns, of the situation of the Christian community in Rome at the time it was written, but since nobody remembers the name of the monarch whose name sounded a lot like the phrase for "the whirling tempest of mayhem," it's been assumed to be a prediction of the end times.

Kind of like if we were to make a comment about a contemporary pop star with a disastrous record of dating the wrong guys, along the lines of "Taylor's not too Swift," and several centuries later that offhand comment is interpreted as meaning, "U.S. President Zachary Taylor was acknowledged by 21st-century historians as the least intellectually gifted of the early Presidents."

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > That's very interesting, not least because Vergil "corrected" Rous' 'curtam' to 'brevi' - ie he ditched Rous' use of the word 'curtus' meaning shortened or deficient and replaced it with 'brevis', the normal word for 'short'. This suggests to me that, whilst Vergil understood Rous to have meant 'having a short face' he found his choice of vocabulary odd.
> > Psychologically, Vergil may have tended to the "short face" translation of Rous' words because otherwise he would have had no description of Richard's face - the most important part of his appearance - to draw on.
> > Ironically, I suspect that modern translators of Rous have probably taken their cue from Vergil as to how to translate this phrase, so that we go round in circles.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> My thoughts exactly. It just shows the need to start from scratch with new translations that don't depend on each other or have notes to point this sort of circular mistake. So, a translation of Rous would have his apparent intended meaning with a note on why "short face" (the usual translation) is clearly wrong and influenced by Vergil, who in turn was "improving" Rous by mistranslating him. The note in Vergil would explain where he got this idea and why it's wrong.
>
> Current scholarship depends on flawed translations, setting aside any flaws in the sources themselves.
>
> Carol
>

Omg! McJohn , that's TOO funny!! You crack me up!! Lol.

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

On Feb 16, 2013, at 9:08 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Maybe Rous was really intending to say, in some idiomatic fashion common to the time, "He had this deformed body," and Vergil read it years later and said, "'Short face'? Dude, your Latin is atrocious! We'll just clean that up a little bit."
>
> Wouldn't be the first time that the key to a text is lost over a brief period of time: the Book of Revelation is often described as an allegory, complete with phonetic puns, of the situation of the Christian community in Rome at the time it was written, but since nobody remembers the name of the monarch whose name sounded a lot like the phrase for "the whirling tempest of mayhem," it's been assumed to be a prediction of the end times.
>
> Kind of like if we were to make a comment about a contemporary pop star with a disastrous record of dating the wrong guys, along the lines of "Taylor's not too Swift," and several centuries later that offhand comment is interpreted as meaning, "U.S. President Zachary Taylor was acknowledged by 21st-century historians as the least intellectually gifted of the early Presidents."
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > Marie wrote:
> > > That's very interesting, not least because Vergil "corrected" Rous' 'curtam' to 'brevi' - ie he ditched Rous' use of the word 'curtus' meaning shortened or deficient and replaced it with 'brevis', the normal word for 'short'. This suggests to me that, whilst Vergil understood Rous to have meant 'having a short face' he found his choice of vocabulary odd.
> > > Psychologically, Vergil may have tended to the "short face" translation of Rous' words because otherwise he would have had no description of Richard's face - the most important part of his appearance - to draw on.
> > > Ironically, I suspect that modern translators of Rous have probably taken their cue from Vergil as to how to translate this phrase, so that we go round in circles.
> > [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > My thoughts exactly. It just shows the need to start from scratch with new translations that don't depend on each other or have notes to point this sort of circular mistake. So, a translation of Rous would have his apparent intended meaning with a note on why "short face" (the usual translation) is clearly wrong and influenced by Vergil, who in turn was "improving" Rous by mistranslating him. The note in Vergil would explain where he got this idea and why it's wrong.
> >
> > Current scholarship depends on flawed translations, setting aside any flaws in the sources themselves.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>

Also, Dr. Jo is quite young.......or look to be. I was much impressed by the Townton group.

On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:26 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Haven't looked at MB's - she's in the big league. I thought you could tell me more. Don't spend as much time there as I once did as have to work again now.

One thing I have noticed though is archivists, like some archaeologists (JA for example) can become very desensified (is that the word?)from material they're working with. So when they hand you a will from 1650 all they see is a piece of paper, which is theirs (they are very possessive) and not to be damaged; they don't share your wonder at looking at the signature of a long dead xtimesgranddad. I suspect that has happened in the case of Jo. She's used to seeing piles of bones; this was just another set which unfortunately some emotional people are making a fuss over. I doubt she realises how dangerous her throw-away description has been. Whereas the guy who did the Towton bones analysis went to great lengths to say they were human beings and treated them with great respect. A rare man indeed.


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 23:29
Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation



Lucky you, actually! Can you possibly quote me Margaret Beaufort's bequest of tithe money?
Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Originals Marie. For my sins I spend a fair bit of time in record offices. Poor Margaret, she was right to weep for Henry - love it!
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 19:02
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
>
> ý
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marie, One or two of mine do say they have been remiss in paying tithes. Yes I know about masses. Was Margaret in a state because she was behind with her tithes or there was no-one to say masses?
>
> Marie replies:-
>
> They all say they leave money, or whatever was the custom in their locality, "for tithes forgotten or negligently witholden" or some such phrase. What does MB's will actually say? It's not one I've looked at.
> She wouldn't be in a state because she was behind with her tithes even if she was, because she left the money to pay them. And I guess leaving the church something to cover forgotten tithes wouldn't have become almost obligatory unless people tended to be behind with them. The notion seemed to be that as long as you put debts right at your death that was okay. 15th century people lived in debt to each other - it was normal. Making a will that settled all your earthly obligations was regarded as part and parcel of making the 'good death'.
>
> These are two rather different recollections of Margaret's deathbed scene (From Jones & Underwood, 'The King's Mother'):
> 1) By John Fisher. When the last rites were administered to her 'with all her herte and soule she raysed her body... and confessed assuredly that in that sacrament was conteyned Chryst Jhesu, the Sone of God, that dyed for wretched Synners uon the Crosse, in whome holly she put her truste and confydence.'
> 2) From Reginald Pole. Weeping many tears as she was dying, Margaret commended the young king to Fisher's guidance, fearing that the adolescent Henry, left in supreme authority, would easily turn his face from God.
> So according to Pole it was Henry VIII's soul she was afraid for, not her own. Sounds like the wisdom of hindsight, though.
>
> Are the wills you have looked at the originals or printed copies?
>
> Marie
>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, 15 February 2013, 17:19
> > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's Reputation
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, eileen bates wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilary...when you think about it...MB also put her son's head on the line didnt she. Sending him into battle where it was highly likely he could have got well and truely mullered...It makes me wonder if her ambitions were more about herself than her son..Eileen
> > > On 15 Feb 2013, at 16:24, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yep I was being humorous about MB. You're quite right. In the 19th century it was the Lord of the Manor or the millowner trying to 'buy a place up there'. What's interesting from the wills of MB's times is that so many had got behind with their tithes, so they had to make up for it with 'extras' and masses.
> >
> > Marie replies:
> > The gift to the parish church to cover forgotten tithes was excpected, it had become a routine donation and so doesn't really tell us whether any particular individual was really behind with them or not.
> > Paying for masses was something different. According to Catholic doctrine the prayers of the living can speed a soul's progress through purgatory, and so testators were very keen to make sure they got lots of masses said for their souls, ideally with a special big load soon after death, and then continuing in perpetuity if they could afford it (hence the growth of chantry chapels).
> > I seem to recall reading in 'The kin's mother' that Margaret Beaufort was in a bit of a state of fear when she was dying.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great points....

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:08 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



Maybe Rous was really intending to say, in some idiomatic fashion common to the time, "He had this deformed body," and Vergil read it years later and said, "'Short face'? Dude, your Latin is atrocious! We'll just clean that up a little bit."

Wouldn't be the first time that the key to a text is lost over a brief period of time: the Book of Revelation is often described as an allegory, complete with phonetic puns, of the situation of the Christian community in Rome at the time it was written, but since nobody remembers the name of the monarch whose name sounded a lot like the phrase for "the whirling tempest of mayhem," it's been assumed to be a prediction of the end times.

Kind of like if we were to make a comment about a contemporary pop star with a disastrous record of dating the wrong guys, along the lines of "Taylor's not too Swift," and several centuries later that offhand comment is interpreted as meaning, "U.S. President Zachary Taylor was acknowledged by 21st-century historians as the least intellectually gifted of the early Presidents."

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > That's very interesting, not least because Vergil "corrected" Rous' 'curtam' to 'brevi' - ie he ditched Rous' use of the word 'curtus' meaning shortened or deficient and replaced it with 'brevis', the normal word for 'short'. This suggests to me that, whilst Vergil understood Rous to have meant 'having a short face' he found his choice of vocabulary odd.
> > Psychologically, Vergil may have tended to the "short face" translation of Rous' words because otherwise he would have had no description of Richard's face - the most important part of his appearance - to draw on.
> > Ironically, I suspect that modern translators of Rous have probably taken their cue from Vergil as to how to translate this phrase, so that we go round in circles.
> [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> My thoughts exactly. It just shows the need to start from scratch with new translations that don't depend on each other or have notes to point this sort of circular mistake. So, a translation of Rous would have his apparent intended meaning with a note on why "short face" (the usual translation) is clearly wrong and influenced by Vergil, who in turn was "improving" Rous by mistranslating him. The note in Vergil would explain where he got this idea and why it's wrong.
>
> Current scholarship depends on flawed translations, setting aside any flaws in the sources themselves.
>
> Carol
>

 
The BBC did this earlier in the year
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hollowcrown/
 
I don't really like Henry IV so only watched some of part I and then Richard II which is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays (along with The Tempest which is my absolute favourite).  I didn't bother with Henry V because I always think of Branagh too (even more than Olivier)
 
I don't know if it would be available on tv or dvd in the US but I'd say it (they) were well worth a look.
 
Liz

________________________________

 
Carol said: snip.It's been a long time since I read the two Henry IV plays. I remember being very confused as to who was who the first time I read them, but I could give them another chance now, bearing in mind that his Hotspur is twenty years too young and his Prince Hal probably quite difference from (and more likeable than) the historical person. I remember Henry V more clearly but I'm afraid I now see Kenneth Branaugh when I try to read the play

Maybe H7 kept MB as close as she wanted to be kept because H7 knew nothing about ruling England, and he desperately needed her to help him fake it.

~Weds


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:

> Perhaps it's a case of sublimation(?). MB seems to have know her way around the politics of the 15th century well enough. Maybe what she did was BECAUSE she herself couldn't be monarch? It wouldn't be the first time a parent has sacrificed a child to the parent's ambition.
> Doug

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Maybe H7 kept MB as close as she wanted to be kept because H7 knew nothing about ruling England, and he desperately needed her to help him fake it.

Carol responds:

Funny thing, no one talks about his complete lack of training to be king. He spent most of his time in exile with no better tutor than Nuncle Jasper that I'm aware of. I'm sure that he never really expected to become king. But, of course, once he "won" Bosworth through no effort of his own, he also had Morton to guide his hand, and I think those three (I'm including MB, whose powers as a plotter they would have learned to appreciate) put their combined shrewdness together to help Henry hold onto his very shaky throne.

BTW, the story of Henry having an illegitimate son was interesting, but the speculation that he was married has no basis that I know of. We would have heard of that wife, and he wouldn't have set aside a legitimate son in favor of a son or sons by a second wife. Or would he? He was Henry Tudor, after all.

Carol

Came across this one while looking for the post about the location of Edward V!

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> You can train a horse to respond to commands that don't involve your upper limbs, but in the knockabout of battle, communicating that way would be too subtle for the horse to "get it."

You can actually train a horse to respond to voice commands, like a dog. Fiord ponies are usually trained that way (partly so that a rider who is steaming drunk can just climb on and say "Go home") and so are a lot of working horses, I was watching a documentary on heavy horses recently and there was a vineyard owner driving a pair of carthorses just by saying go left, go right, slow down, speed up.
>
> The rider would need both arms, hands, and most of his fingers. I can't imagine having to communicate with a horse when one's legs are encased in metal and one's fingers are bound up in gauntlets, so the horse can't feel your leg muscles communicate with his sides or your fingers/arms through the reins with his mouth/neck. I'd imagine a knight could only use his hands and arms and spurs in the broadest of movements?

In very fine movements I'd think. You often see in fiction descriptions of Mediaeval riders raking their horse's sides with those vicious-looking long spurs, but in fact they sat in such a way that they needed long spurs even to touch the horse, and they needed pricking points because they couldn't bend their legs at the knee to give the horse a nudge - they rode as if standing straight-legged in the stirrups, and so would only be able to work the spurs by small rotations at the ankle. The same with the fierce-looking bits they used: they were probably that way because they had to be able to exert enough pressure for the horse to feel it, just by a small rotation of the wrist of an arm which was burdened by a shield.
>
> I've often wondered if a warhorse wasn't trained to automatically do his thing until he was ordered to do something else. Sort of like a land mine: "Point toward enemy." When he's initially spurred he'd leap in to do his job of ripping off faces and taking out chunks of flesh, rearing and smashing people to the ground to stomp on them, lashing out with his hind feet... all while responding to the broader commands of his rider telling him, "Go left," "Go right," "Leap forward or back," or "Get us the hell out of this melee."

I would think so.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Ive often wondered if the birth of that poxy lie evolved from something Richard uttered at the council meeting...something on the lines of 'my hands are tied'...something to describe how he felt about the situation he had been cast into...Eileen
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > The problem is, you say that your left arm is a bit smaller than your right, and doesn't look withered. More said Richard's arm was withered, and we have been told by the Leicester team that his two arms match perfectly and were similarly developed and used. So it looks to me as though the withered arm theory is totally out of the window.
> > how can more state that richards arm was witherd , more was only a child at the time of bosworth .and i doubt if more ever saw richard in person , jim
> >
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, on the most basic level, my left arm is a bit smaller than my right (if I
> > > do the standard bicep-display flexion, you can barely see anything show up on my
> > > left arm, but it's very noticeable on my right), and I'm not particularly
> > > athletic. That's just from carrying my laptop bag and small children. I'd think
> > > that someone with a similar condition but considerably more athletic prowess-
> > > and probably more visible musculature to start with, as he was a small-framed,
> > > thin man and I'm a large-framed woman carrying about twenty extra pounds than
> > > are necessary- would already look a bit more unevenly distributed.
> > >
> > > Like I said, I'm not really disabled in that arm- I can pick up most items the
> > > size of about a pack of cards in one go with it (smaller objects take a couple
> > > of tries, usually, because of the need for finer direction of the fingers), but
> > > I struggle a little with things like proper typing because of the little, almost
> > > twitchlike movements that are necessary for that. I type with primarily my right
> > > hand, and only using my left for the keys at the far left of the keyboard and to
> > > do things like tapping the shift key to capitalize letters. I can still grip
> > > with it, though- it's no trouble to use my left arm to carry heavy bags or
> > > anything, so if Richard's condition was anything like mine, he could probably
> > > still hold into and steer his horse with his left hand while using his right to
> > > wield his axe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wed, February 13, 2013 12:07:49 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Scoliosis, Hypothesis and Richard's
> > > Reputation
> > >
> > >
> > > More specifically said the affected arm was "small".
> > > How would you manage fighting on horseback with your problems with your left
> > > arm, do you think?
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>