Skeleton

No pictures but interesting prospect for the future . a 3D
reconstruction of Richard's skeleton.
Paul


http://optics.org/news/4/2/10


-- Richard Liveth Yet!

Interesting indeed, and I hope it happens.

On Feb 14, 2013, at 5:52 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



No pictures but interesting prospect for the future . a 3D
reconstruction of Richard's skeleton.
Paul

http://optics.org/news/4/2/10

-- Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> No pictures but interesting prospect for the future . a 3D
> reconstruction of Richard's skeleton.
> Paul
>
>
> http://optics.org/news/4/2/10
>
>
> -- Richard Liveth Yet!

Carol responds:

Thank you, Paul. That's very encouraging. 3D printing is a technological miracle that I can't begin to understand, but it will give scientists all over the world access to a replica of the skeleton. I only hope that they will assemble it vertically to settle the question of whether the curve was exaggerated either by lying down or by being squashed into the grave. From there, it would be easy for an authorized team to reconstruct his body as it would have been in life. Gives an ironic new meaning to your sig line!

BTW, does anyone know (and I mean know, not guess) whether a (theoretical) broken back caused by being slung backwards over a packhorse and tied down would show up in the skeleton? Wouldn't it be only the spinal cord that was damaged? A broken back might have made it easier to squash him into a grave that was too small and exaggerated any curve that was already there.

Carol

Carol said:


BTW, does anyone know (and I mean know, not guess) whether a (theoretical) broken back caused by being slung backwards over a packhorse and tied down would show up in the skeleton? Wouldn't it be only the spinal cord that was damaged? A broken back might have made it easier to squash him into a grave that was too small and exaggerated any curve that was already there.


Liz rpelied:
 
I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse.  How do we know it was backwards?  I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported.  Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed  him in the backside?
 
Liz
 
 
 

Liz wrote:
>  
> I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse.  How do we know it was backwards?  I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported.  Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed  him in the backside?

Carol responds:

The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.

Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.

Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?

I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.

Carol

I find this to be so interesting, and certainly would support the vertebrae looking different. I wonder if Dr. Apple by even stored this supposition? I do hope there is more discussion about the various scenarios with regard to the skeleton.

On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Liz wrote:
> ý
> I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse.ý How do we know it was backwards?ý I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported.ý Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbedý him in the backside?

Carol responds:

The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.

Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.

Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?

I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.

Carol

OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:

> I find this to be so interesting, and certainly would support the vertebrae looking different. I wonder if Dr. Apple by even stored this supposition? I do hope there is more discussion about the various scenarios with regard to the skeleton.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Liz wrote:
>> Â
>> I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse. How do we know it was backwards? I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported. Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed him in the backside?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.
>
> Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.
>
> Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
>
> I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.

I have the feeling we will look back on the discovery and say that Dr. Jo "Oops" Appleby was the first in interpretation, and the last in accuracy.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I find this to be so interesting, and certainly would support the vertebrae looking different. I wonder if Dr. Apple by even stored this supposition? I do hope there is more discussion about the various scenarios with regard to the skeleton.
>
> On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Liz wrote:
> > Â
> > I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse. How do we know it was backwards? I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported. Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed him in the backside?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.
>
> Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.
>
> Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
>
> I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Dr. Oops did make an occasional comment, both in the ULeic announcements and in the Ch 4 doc, to the effect that one source said thus-and-such, or that we know that the contemporary report was such-and-so. She seems to have had at least journeyperson familiarity with the sources. That wouldn't be surprising in a professor on a project of historical importance, but I do have a bone or two to pick about her slinging both pickaxes and anatomically questionable lingo.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > I find this to be so interesting, and certainly would support the vertebrae looking different. I wonder if Dr. Apple by even stored this supposition? I do hope there is more discussion about the various scenarios with regard to the skeleton.
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Liz wrote:
> >> Â
> >> I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse. How do we know it was backwards? I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported. Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed him in the backside?
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.
> >
> > Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.
> >
> > Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
> >
> > I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse
I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
George

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:35 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Dr. Oops did make an occasional comment, both in the ULeic announcements and in the Ch 4 doc, to the effect that one source said thus-and-such, or that we know that the contemporary report was such-and-so. She seems to have had at least journeyperson familiarity with the sources. That wouldn't be surprising in a professor on a project of historical importance, but I do have a bone or two to pick about her slinging both pickaxes and anatomically questionable lingo.
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pamela Bain" wrote:
> >
> > > I find this to be so interesting, and certainly would support the vertebrae looking different. I wonder if Dr. Apple by even stored this supposition? I do hope there is more discussion about the various scenarios with regard to the skeleton.
> > >
> > > On Feb 15, 2013, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Liz wrote:
> > >> Â
> > >> I meant to do this before when someone else said about Richard being thrown backwards over the horse. How do we know it was backwards? I had always just assumed he was chucked over the horse face and chest downwards to be transported. Wouldn't that also make it easier for someone to have stabbed him in the backside?
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > The stabbing in the backside was probably done before he was slung on the packhorse. As several posters have said, such an action would have caused even a packhorse to rear up and bolt. Also, I can't imagine one of the townspeople suddenly running up from the sidelines to stab his former king in any part of his body. (I suspect that the majority of the people expected to see him ride out as splendidly as he had ridden in and wondered what manner of man this new king was who would treat a fallen enemy so abominably.) The stabbing must have been done on the battlefield, along with the other "humiliation" wounds, perhaps by French mercenaries who thought of him as a dangerous enemy.
> > >
> > > Also, since Henry took care not to damage his face over much and clearly wanted him to be recognizable to prove that Richard was really dead, he must have wanted his face to be visible to the crowd, which would require him to be face up, which would require his body to be unnaturally bent to be slung backwards over the horse. One source (I don't recall which one) stated (with apparent disapprovel despite stating that Richard was a tyrant) that he was slung over the horse with not so much as a breach clout to cover his privy member. (I'm sorry to bring that image to mind, but that's the source's wording, and it implies strongly that he was on his back, which would also serve to intensify the humiliation of a dead enemy. Of course, it could have been a later source, bur if it was Rous, I think we can trust him in this instance. And if it was Vergil, his informant would be Henry, so for once we could accept his description as well.
> > >
> > > Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton? Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
> > >
> > > I asked my chiropractor about it today and he promised to look it up on the Leicester website. He even asked me how to spell "Leicester" and wrote it down, so maybe he'll actually do it. If so, I'll know what he thinks when I return for my next appointment in three weeks.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?

Carol responds:

I very much doubt it. They didn't even expect to find a body, let alone Richard III, which might account for her unprofessional reaction (blurting out on camera to poor Philippa that he was a "hunchback." Someone said that she's young. I don't have a birthdate for her, but she received her PhD in 2008, which means that she has less than five years experience.

BTW, my chiropractor, who hasn't seen the website yet, shook his head in disbelief when he heard that someone had described scoliosis as a hunchback. To him, they were obviously very different conditions. Dr. A. apparently "knew" Richard only from Shakespeare and thought that they were hunting for a murderous hunchback, which would explain her (apparent) disdain of Philippa. It seems that someone, presumably Lin Foxhall, later informed her of the raised shoulder description (Rous) and the delicate limbs (von Popellau) and she tried to shape her "hunchback" with "feminine" bones terminology to fit those descriptions, but the damage was done.

Yes, I know that I'm speculating. I can't possibly know what Jo Appleby thought. I do believe, however, that her carelessness in more than one respect can only be explained by inexperience and a lack of understanding of the historical Richard and the importance of getting everything right.

Carol

I agree with you about Dr. A. I do wonder if her technique and rush to judgement, may be a career stopper, rather than the star in her resume?

On Feb 16, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?

Carol responds:

I very much doubt it. They didn't even expect to find a body, let alone Richard III, which might account for her unprofessional reaction (blurting out on camera to poor Philippa that he was a "hunchback." Someone said that she's young. I don't have a birthdate for her, but she received her PhD in 2008, which means that she has less than five years experience.

BTW, my chiropractor, who hasn't seen the website yet, shook his head in disbelief when he heard that someone had described scoliosis as a hunchback. To him, they were obviously very different conditions. Dr. A. apparently "knew" Richard only from Shakespeare and thought that they were hunting for a murderous hunchback, which would explain her (apparent) disdain of Philippa. It seems that someone, presumably Lin Foxhall, later informed her of the raised shoulder description (Rous) and the delicate limbs (von Popellau) and she tried to shape her "hunchback" with "feminine" bones terminology to fit those descriptions, but the damage was done.

Yes, I know that I'm speculating. I can't possibly know what Jo Appleby thought. I do believe, however, that her carelessness in more than one respect can only be explained by inexperience and a lack of understanding of the historical Richard and the importance of getting everything right.

Carol

I've sort of held off commenting on Jo Appelby till now, but I started watching back through the C4 programme again, and she seemed quite gleeful as she was placing the vertebrae in place on the table, exclaiming, 'They're not even a normal shape as they go down!' or some such thing. I do suspect she knew nothing of Richard but Shakespeare and was quite pleased to be able to demonstrate to Philippa that she had been harbouring silly delusions. But that may be unfair. I've never met her.

But I would really like someone more experienced, and who knows about scoliosis, to look at the spinal alignment.

Marie



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I very much doubt it. They didn't even expect to find a body, let alone Richard III, which might account for her unprofessional reaction (blurting out on camera to poor Philippa that he was a "hunchback." Someone said that she's young. I don't have a birthdate for her, but she received her PhD in 2008, which means that she has less than five years experience.
>
> BTW, my chiropractor, who hasn't seen the website yet, shook his head in disbelief when he heard that someone had described scoliosis as a hunchback. To him, they were obviously very different conditions. Dr. A. apparently "knew" Richard only from Shakespeare and thought that they were hunting for a murderous hunchback, which would explain her (apparent) disdain of Philippa. It seems that someone, presumably Lin Foxhall, later informed her of the raised shoulder description (Rous) and the delicate limbs (von Popellau) and she tried to shape her "hunchback" with "feminine" bones terminology to fit those descriptions, but the damage was done.
>
> Yes, I know that I'm speculating. I can't possibly know what Jo Appleby thought. I do believe, however, that her carelessness in more than one respect can only be explained by inexperience and a lack of understanding of the historical Richard and the importance of getting everything right.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> Dr. Oops did make an occasional comment, both in the ULeic announcements and in the Ch 4 doc, to the effect that one source said thus-and-such, or that we know that the contemporary report was such-and-so. She seems to have had at least journeyperson familiarity with the sources. That wouldn't be surprising in a professor on a project of historical importance, but I do have a bone or two to pick about her slinging both pickaxes and anatomically questionable lingo.

Carol responds:

I don't think so. No one with a journeyman's knowledge of Richard III would know about Rous and von Popelau, and no one familiar with those sources would call him a "hunchback." I think that Lin Foxhall, who referred to those sources in the press conference (damage control?) must have told her about them, and she in turn could have been informed by the two Shakespeare scholars who were also part of the team. I think they were the same two who wrote the fascinating if somewhat technical and unfortunately titled "Richard Crouchback" article I linked earlier. They would have told the anthropologists that no one before Shakespeare used the term "hunchback" (or "bunch-back" since "hunchback" appears to be a typesetter's error).

Carol

Marie,
 
I have to confess I didn't get to watch the whole thing properly but - call me paranoid - fromwhat I did see I wondered where her sympathies lay.    The way she said "he's go a hunchback" made me wonder the same thing and didn't seem (to me) to be as neutral as I would expect.  I plan to watch it again but just don't seem to have had the time yet.
 
My former next door neighbour was an archaeologist - they moved about 2 years ago.  I wish they were still here so I could ask him what he thought of her digging skills.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 20:55
Subject: Re: Skeleton

 

I've sort of held off commenting on Jo Appelby till now, but I started watching back through the C4 programme again, and she seemed quite gleeful as she was placing the vertebrae in place on the table, exclaiming, 'They're not even a normal shape as they go down!' or some such thing. I do suspect she knew nothing of Richard but Shakespeare and was quite pleased to be able to demonstrate to Philippa that she had been harbouring silly delusions. But that may be unfair. I've never met her.

But I would really like someone more experienced, and who knows about scoliosis, to look at the spinal alignment.

Marie

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I very much doubt it. They didn't even expect to find a body, let alone Richard III, which might account for her unprofessional reaction (blurting out on camera to poor Philippa that he was a "hunchback." Someone said that she's young. I don't have a birthdate for her, but she received her PhD in 2008, which means that she has less than five years experience.
>
> BTW, my chiropractor, who hasn't seen the website yet, shook his head in disbelief when he heard that someone had described scoliosis as a hunchback. To him, they were obviously very different conditions. Dr. A. apparently "knew" Richard only from Shakespeare and thought that they were hunting for a murderous hunchback, which would explain her (apparent) disdain of Philippa. It seems that someone, presumably Lin Foxhall, later informed her of the raised shoulder description (Rous) and the delicate limbs (von Popellau) and she tried to shape her "hunchback" with "feminine" bones terminology to fit those descriptions, but the damage was done.
>
> Yes, I know that I'm speculating. I can't possibly know what Jo Appleby thought. I do believe, however, that her carelessness in more than one respect can only be explained by inexperience and a lack of understanding of the historical Richard and the importance of getting everything right.
>
> Carol
>

[Staring thoughtfully at the ceiling.] I'm trying to remember the scene in the Ch4 doc where Dr. Oops was down in the trench in her darling little white Tyvek hoodie-suit squinting up at Ms. Langley while making some comment about how some authority had made some statement about Richard's burial. I've already emperiled my karma watching the doc once without paying for it (although I suspect Ch 4 won't miss my financial contribution to their next BMW)... Dang, if it had been "Frontline" or "American Masters", there's a good chance there would have been a transcript. Grump, grump, grump.

Dr. Foxhall, from the git-go, has sounded a lot better informed about the historical sources back to Richard's reign, but that would be expected from a department head who's used to goofing with paper rather than bones. In everything I've seen of Dr. Foxhall, she just has this infectious excited spirit that makes studying history look like the funnest thing anyone could possibly be lucky enough to do.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@> wrote:
> >
> > Dr. Oops did make an occasional comment, both in the ULeic announcements and in the Ch 4 doc, to the effect that one source said thus-and-such, or that we know that the contemporary report was such-and-so. She seems to have had at least journeyperson familiarity with the sources. That wouldn't be surprising in a professor on a project of historical importance, but I do have a bone or two to pick about her slinging both pickaxes and anatomically questionable lingo.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think so. No one with a journeyman's knowledge of Richard III would know about Rous and von Popelau, and no one familiar with those sources would call him a "hunchback." I think that Lin Foxhall, who referred to those sources in the press conference (damage control?) must have told her about them, and she in turn could have been informed by the two Shakespeare scholars who were also part of the team. I think they were the same two who wrote the fascinating if somewhat technical and unfortunately titled "Richard Crouchback" article I linked earlier. They would have told the anthropologists that no one before Shakespeare used the term "hunchback" (or "bunch-back" since "hunchback" appears to be a typesetter's error).
>
> Carol
>

Possibly something along the lines of, "I think it would be an excellent idea if she were to develop a few."

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Marie,
>  
> I have to confess I didn't get to watch the whole thing properly but - call me paranoid - fromwhat I did see I wondered where her sympathies lay.    The way she said "he's go a hunchback" made me wonder the same thing and didn't seem (to me) to be as neutral as I would expect.  I plan to watch it again but just don't seem to have had the time yet.
>  
> My former next door neighbour was an archaeologist - they moved about 2 years ago.  I wish they were still here so I could ask him what he thought of her digging skills.
>  
> Liz

:-)  VERY good idea.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 22:36
Subject: Re: Skeleton

 
Possibly something along the lines of, "I think it would be an excellent idea if she were to develop a few."

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams wrote:
>
> Marie,
>  
> I have to confess I didn't get to watch the whole thing properly but - call me paranoid - fromwhat I did see I wondered where her sympathies lay.    The way she said "he's go a hunchback" made me wonder the same thing and didn't seem (to me) to be as neutral as I would expect.  I plan to watch it again but just don't seem to have had the time yet.
>  
> My former next door neighbour was an archaeologist - they moved about 2 years ago.  I wish they were still here so I could ask him what he thought of her digging skills.
>  
> Liz

I hope I never have an occasion to meet Dr. A., for now and forever she will be Dr. Oops for me. I did ask the head archaeologist at our National Park about her technique...... Susan was not familiar with the dig, and had not heard about the King in the Car Park. However, the remains of quite a few indigenous people who worked with the Franciscans in the Missions have been encountered. Susan said they immediately stop any further digging, and start sifting and feathering to uncover bones or one fragments. She was shocked that Dr. Oops had used a shovel, when they knew there were bones...... She said that was a no no, and even the greenest of volunteers were never allowed to have anything larger than a trowel, and never in an area of question.

On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:36 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



Possibly something along the lines of, "I think it would be an excellent idea if she were to develop a few."

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
>
> Marie,
> ý
> I have to confess I didn't get to watch the whole thing properly but - call me paranoid - fromwhat I did see I wondered where her sympathies lay.ý ý ý ý The way she said "he's go a hunchback" made me wonder the same thing and didn't seem (to me) to be as neutral as I would expect.ý I plan to watch it again but just don't seem to have had the time yet.
> ý
> My former next door neighbour was an archaeologist - they moved about 2 years ago.ý I wish they were still here so I could ask him what he thought of her digging skills.
> ý
> Liz

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> George

Carol responds:

What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.

Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)

This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.

The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.

On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:

"whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html

Carol

That's very interesting. We need as much information as possible from professionals with experience. Dr Appleby and her colleague in the film, the forensic pathologist, appeared over keen to jump to conclusions and make rash comments, which have only reinforced the opinions of the detractors who continue to harp on about the "hunchback" point of view. They appeared like junior members of the team trying to show off in front of the cameras, and also, in Appleby's case, her lack of experience showed at the dig site. Why was she featured so strongly on the film? Weren't the remains found on the first day by one of the other members of the team, who apparently found a leg sticking out? That would imply that Appleby was called in after this, so why were they using such heavy equipment to move the earth in view of this, and more importantly, why was she wielding that hammer like thing when the correct procedure was to painstakingly remove the surrounding earth slowly and minutely. It smacks of hastiness and lack of experience.
Richard Buckley stressed from the start the unlikelihood of finding Richard, and, in addition, how rare that was as archaeologists did not go looking for specific persons. His aim, he said, was hopefully, to find the GreyFriars and find out more about Leicester. However, the mandate they had from the Richard III Society (we don't know whether the U of Leicester contributed to the dig) was specific and as luck would have it, was successful. However, if you listen to the comments from the University, it definitely suggests they did not expect much to come from the dig, which might explain why a junior member of staff was allocated. They might try to backtrack on that now as it is going to be very successful for them and they will gain much kudos both financially and academically in the future.

BTW, Did anyone else notice that the narrator in the film gives the impression that the remains have not been touched for a couple of months until they are sent for the CAT scan? That would explain the delay as we were originally told December and the results were delayed until the beginning of February. And the lack of haste.
I'm sure I heard it.
Elaine


--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'm convinced they didn't think they'd find him (after all they said so before they started) and so they didn't take it as seriously as we would have hoped they should.  I have to say I would hope that Dr Oops (never to be known as anything else on this forum I suspect) would have had a private dressing down if she was as clumsy as it looks to us.  I too wondered why she was so prominent on the documentary and frankly wondered if it was because she is young and fairly attractive?  (I know what tv people are like!) 
 
 
 


________________________________
From: ellrosa1452 <kathryn198@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 16 February 2013, 23:38
Subject: Re: Skeleton

 
That's very interesting. We need as much information as possible from professionals with experience. Dr Appleby and her colleague in the film, the forensic pathologist, appeared over keen to jump to conclusions and make rash comments, which have only reinforced the opinions of the detractors who continue to harp on about the "hunchback" point of view. They appeared like junior members of the team trying to show off in front of the cameras, and also, in Appleby's case, her lack of experience showed at the dig site. Why was she featured so strongly on the film? Weren't the remains found on the first day by one of the other members of the team, who apparently found a leg sticking out? That would imply that Appleby was called in after this, so why were they using such heavy equipment to move the earth in view of this, and more importantly, why was she wielding that hammer like thing when the correct procedure was to painstakingly remove the surrounding earth
slowly and minutely. It smacks of hastiness and lack of experience.
Richard Buckley stressed from the start the unlikelihood of finding Richard, and, in addition, how rare that was as archaeologists did not go looking for specific persons. His aim, he said, was hopefully, to find the GreyFriars and find out more about Leicester. However, the mandate they had from the Richard III Society (we don't know whether the U of Leicester contributed to the dig) was specific and as luck would have it, was successful. However, if you listen to the comments from the University, it definitely suggests they did not expect much to come from the dig, which might explain why a junior member of staff was allocated. They might try to backtrack on that now as it is going to be very successful for them and they will gain much kudos both financially and academically in the future.

BTW, Did anyone else notice that the narrator in the film gives the impression that the remains have not been touched for a couple of months until they are sent for the CAT scan? That would explain the delay as we were originally told December and the results were delayed until the beginning of February. And the lack of haste.
I'm sure I heard it.
Elaine

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Florence Dove wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Carol
Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
George


Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2013, at 6:32 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> > Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> > So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> > George
>
> Carol responds:
>
> What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
>
> Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
>
> This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
>
> The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
>
> On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
>
> "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
>
> Carol
>
>

Thank you spell check x-rayed

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> Carol
> Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
> George
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 6:32 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> > > Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> > > So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> > > George
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
> >
> > Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
> >
> > This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
> >
> > The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
> >
> > On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
> >
> > "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
> >
> > http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Dunno, I had my suspicions about that left radius.

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you spell check x-rayed
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol
> > Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> > Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
> > George
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 16, 2013, at 6:32 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> > > > Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> > > > So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> > > > George
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
> > >
> > > Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
> > >
> > > This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
> > >
> > > The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
> > >
> > > On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
> > >
> > > "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
> > >
> > > http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol wrote:

<snipped>
> Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton?


Weds here:
If his back was broken, I *think* it would show up where his spine met his pelvis.

Then again, if the horse was broad-backed, mebbe they wouldn't need to break his back. (In my happy place, the horse was very broad-backed.)


Carol wrote:

> Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?

I don't know what damage Jo Appleby showed. If it's the damage on the corners of the vertebrae...wouldn't that be from the scoliosis? I watched the documentary, but haven't been able to screw up my courage to watch the pres conference. Where's the damage?

As to making it easier to squash the body into a too-small grave, mebbe, because if the back were broken the lower body would no longer be attached to the torso, so the body would be extremely floppy and difficult to handle. (And after three days in the August heat, that's be one more thing making the body more difficult and disgusting to handle. Skin slippage is bad enough without adding this to it.)

Why do we torture ourselves with these details? It occurred to me yesterday that we now know far more than all of England did in 1485 about what happened to him.

~Weds

University departmental politics being what they are, my thought on Dr. Oops was that since they didn't expect to find anything, they assigned the most junior member of the department to the dig.

~Weds


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
.
.
.
I too wondered why she was so prominent on the documentary and frankly wondered if it was because she is young and fairly attractive?  (I know what tv people are like!) 

When was the Ballad written? Could it have simply been doing another
rewrite of history to reflect the fact that William had been executed
for treason and step father Thomas was still in place? If Vergil used
the Ballad as a source perhaps we can understand why he was wrong and
why the legend about Thomas crowning Tudor has persisted.
Paul


On 16/02/2013 23:32, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>> I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
>> Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
>> So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
>> George
> Carol responds:
>
> What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
>
> Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
>
> This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
>
> The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
>
> On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
>
> "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

It did occur to me that, maybe, the crown in the hawthorn symbol was in praise of William (if it was William not Thomas Stanley, who as has been said, may not have even been present), and that it was dropped after William was executed

Pure speculation of course...


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton


 
When was the Ballad written? Could it have simply been doing another
rewrite of history to reflect the fact that William had been executed
for treason and step father Thomas was still in place? If Vergil used
the Ballad as a source perhaps we can understand why he was wrong and
why the legend about Thomas crowning Tudor has persisted.
Paul

On 16/02/2013 23:32, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>> I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
>> Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
>> So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
>> George
> Carol responds:
>
> What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
>
> Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
>
> This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
>
> The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
>
> On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
>
> "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
>
> http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

In 'Focussing' on the deformity of Richard's back [And the EVIDENCE ESTABLISHS A MAN WITH A BACK ABNORMALITY] are we not falling into the trap of those who associated his abnormality with 'Evil' a person with a 'Hunchback' [I use the term both deliberately AND guardedly.] is NO MORE [or NO less.] likely to be good OR evil. The athletes in the recent Olympic Games [Both Normal & Paralympics] might provide useful benchmarks in the modern, current era?.

  I would suggest we consider: Previous tendency to be loyal to his brother, Ability as 'Lord of the North' Acts passed as King, Indeed 'Decency', might, as a [Fatal?] personality trait, lead an individual to believe others to be decent. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 3:46
>Subject: Re: Skeleton
>
>
> 
>Carol wrote:
>
>
>> Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton?
>
>Weds here:
>If his back was broken, I *think* it would show up where his spine met his pelvis.
>
>Then again, if the horse was broad-backed, mebbe they wouldn't need to break his back. (In my happy place, the horse was very broad-backed.)
>
>Carol wrote:
>
>> Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
>
>I don't know what damage Jo Appleby showed. If it's the damage on the corners of the vertebrae...wouldn't that be from the scoliosis? I watched the documentary, but haven't been able to screw up my courage to watch the pres conference. Where's the damage?
>
>As to making it easier to squash the body into a too-small grave, mebbe, because if the back were broken the lower body would no longer be attached to the torso, so the body would be extremely floppy and difficult to handle. (And after three days in the August heat, that's be one more thing making the body more difficult and disgusting to handle. Skin slippage is bad enough without adding this to it.)
>
>Why do we torture ourselves with these details? It occurred to me yesterday that we now know far more than all of England did in 1485 about what happened to him.
>
>~Weds
>
>
>
>
>

I totally AGREE.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 4:26
>Subject: Re: Skeleton
>
>
> 
>University departmental politics being what they are, my thought on Dr. Oops was that since they didn't expect to find anything, they assigned the most junior member of the department to the dig.
>
>~Weds
>
>
>--- In , liz williams wrote:
>.
>.
>.
>I too wondered why she was so prominent on the documentary and frankly wondered if it was because she is young and fairly attractive?  (I know what tv people are like!) 
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Carol
> Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
> George
>
Carol responds:

I don't think so. I'm talking about damage to the spinal cord, which I think (only think) is usually referred to as a broken back, but I'd need someone with a medical degree to tell me for sure. Bending him over a packhorse wouldn't damage the vertebrae, but it could do severe damage to the spinal cord if he were forced into an unnatural position. There was definitely a CT scan. I don't know about an X-ray.

It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective analyst) is not seeing.

Carol

McJohn wrote:
>
> Dunno, I had my suspicions about that left radius.

Carol responds:

First, look at his hands in the paintings. He would not have put them on view conspicuously if there were anything wrong. Second, there's controlling a warhorse. Third, the team--even Appleby--said that his arms were the same size, and she would have jumped on the radius (not literally) if anything were wrong with it. And fourth, the withered arm, which we should not even be talking about since it has been dismissed as pure legend, was invented nearly thirty years later by that highly inventive writer of fiction, Sir Thomas More. It makes me almost ill to think that Richard's supporters are giving such support to the Tudorites. I see nothing whatever wrong with the radius. If you mean the scapula, it appears to have been damaged in the grave, suggesting that Jo is wrong about the bones not shifting as also indicated by the missing sternum. There is also damage to the left tibia that could not have occurred in life and the left fibula is missing.

Carol

Carol, it would be very helpful. I really have no direct knowledge of what happens when you have a sudden and traumatic broken back. However, my SIL small fractures in her back after a car accident. Basically, the vertebrae have lots little bits of bone, and she is monitored closely, so that no bone fragments compromise the nerves. Once again, we need ultra expert experts, so examine every bone in the spine. It would also be nice to compare his spine to some of those remains from Townton, especially if they could do the comparisons of age, diet, etc.

On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:33 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:




--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> George

Carol responds:

What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.

Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)

This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.

The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.

On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:

"whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."

http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html

Carol

I hope they realize and recognize what a travesty this has been, as far as handling the remains. He did stress that the body was quickly covered again, but yes, why the heavy handed methodology when they finally decided it was time to begin the discovery of who the remains really were.



On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:



That's very interesting. We need as much information as possible from professionals with experience. Dr Appleby and her colleague in the film, the forensic pathologist, appeared over keen to jump to conclusions and make rash comments, which have only reinforced the opinions of the detractors who continue to harp on about the "hunchback" point of view. They appeared like junior members of the team trying to show off in front of the cameras, and also, in Appleby's case, her lack of experience showed at the dig site. Why was she featured so strongly on the film? Weren't the remains found on the first day by one of the other members of the team, who apparently found a leg sticking out? That would imply that Appleby was called in after this, so why were they using such heavy equipment to move the earth in view of this, and more importantly, why was she wielding that hammer like thing when the correct procedure was to painstakingly remove the surrounding earth slowly and minutely. It smacks of hastiness and lack of experience.
Richard Buckley stressed from the start the unlikelihood of finding Richard, and, in addition, how rare that was as archaeologists did not go looking for specific persons. His aim, he said, was hopefully, to find the GreyFriars and find out more about Leicester. However, the mandate they had from the Richard III Society (we don't know whether the U of Leicester contributed to the dig) was specific and as luck would have it, was successful. However, if you listen to the comments from the University, it definitely suggests they did not expect much to come from the dig, which might explain why a junior member of staff was allocated. They might try to backtrack on that now as it is going to be very successful for them and they will gain much kudos both financially and academically in the future.

BTW, Did anyone else notice that the narrator in the film gives the impression that the remains have not been touched for a couple of months until they are sent for the CAT scan? That would explain the delay as we were originally told December and the results were delayed until the beginning of February. And the lack of haste.
I'm sure I heard it.
Elaine

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Florence Dove wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Feb 17, 2013, at 9:59 AM, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis
> that seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting
> aside the possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so
> out of keeping with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even
> Rous gives him only a raised shoulder) and his physical activities.
> There has to be an explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly
> the ideal objective analyst) is not seeing.
>
> Carol
>
I've read more than once that, even as bad as it looks on the table,
the scoliosis may not have been noticeable while he was dressed.
Especially considering how active he was physically, he may well have
created his own form of therapy, mitigating the disease. And as one
person noted (not here, in an article,) scoliosis is three
dimensional; until they recreate his physical form, there's no telling
how bad his disability was. Considering he could yield a battle axe
and control a war horse at the same time, it's hard to imagine that it
was severe.

Gilda

It is those Tudor imps trying to cause mischief! They did show what looked like an MRI machine, but surely they did both.....any very probably need to again.

On Feb 16, 2013, at 7:09 PM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



Thank you spell check x-rayed

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 16, 2013, at 8:06 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> Carol
> Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
> George
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 6:32 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > I have been reading the supposition that R3 was thrown backwards over a pack horse I really cannot see this happening, the effort taken to make this work just does not make sense
> > > Soldiers of any age and in any army do not make things more difficult I'am sure that the order was given to get him back he would have been quickly thrown over a pack horse
> > > So far no one has mentioned any direct damage to any vertebrae other than scoliosis had he been placed the wrong way round his back would have been broken and this fact would have been seen in the detailed examination of his bones
> > > George
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > What I'm looking for is someone with a specific knowledge of what's involved in a broken back. Would it show up in the position of the bones? Would the bones themselves be broken or only the spinal cord with some displaced disks? I need to know what constitutes a broken back and whether it could have affected the curvature that we see in the spine of a body stuffed into a too-small grave.
> >
> > Regarding the packhorse, Vergil, who was not present, simply says, "In the meane time the body of king Rycherd nakyd of all clothing, and layd uppon an horse bake with the armes and legges hanginge downe on both sydes, was browght to thabbay of monks Franciscanes at Leycester, a myserable spectacle in good sooth, but not unwoorthy for the mans lyfe, and ther was buryed two days after without any pompe or solemne funerall. He raigned two yeres and so many monethes, and one day over." (Note the vagueness of the length of the reign, a detail that he could easily have checked.)
> >
> > This description does appear to support your view, but it's written long after the fact by someone who wasn't present. He has also suppressed the humiliation wounds and other details that make Henry look less than admirable. I don't have time to check other accounts, but if you're interested, you could check Kendall or Ross. There's also an account by heralds of a later time, but they would, of course, have been influenced by Tudor sources.
> >
> > The truth is out there somewhere. We just need objective experts to help us find it. And, IMO, that means historians familiar with contemporary accounts working along with scientists who don't jump to conclusions.
> >
> > On another note, I just checked and there's no mention of the hawthorn tree in Vergil, but it is certainly *Lord* Stanley, not Sir William, who is given the dubious credit for salvaging the crown and putting it on Henry's head. That in itself makes Vergil's account suspect since it would appear to be the wrong Stanley:
> >
> > "whyle the soldiers cryed, God save king Henry, God save king Henry! and with hart and hand utteryd all the shew of joy that might be; which whan thomas Stanley dyd see, he set anon king Richerds crowne, which was fownd among the spoyle in the feilde, uppon his [Henry's] head."
> >
> > http://www.r3.org/bookcase/polydore.html
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> When was the Ballad written? Could it have simply been doing another
> rewrite of history to reflect the fact that William had been executed for treason and step father Thomas was still in place? If Vergil used the Ballad as a source perhaps we can understand why he was wrong and why the legend about Thomas crowning Tudor has persisted.

Carol responds:

Which ballad are you referring to, Paul? I was quoting Vergil, who began drafting his Anglia Historiae around 1504, at which point Sir William had been dead since 1495, so, yes, he (or his source for Bosworth, Henry) could have rewritten history to that effect. However, he does have Sir William coming to Henry's "reskew," but he also has Richard's household knights fleeing the field, which is almost certainly false.

"The Ballad of Bosworth Field" (pro-Stanley propaganda probably written by one of their followers) does not mention a marsh: http://www.r3.org/bosworth/ballad2.html

Carol

The pictures of the skeleton look almost staged to me - I mean the spine - & staged in the Elizabethan sense of the word. Look how cramped the inhumation is. Also, we surely cannot accept the position of these bones after 500 years in the ground, and a very disturbed ground come to that. If we were to do that we would have to come to the conclusion that Richard III had no feet.

http://weirdthings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/King-Richard-III-Skeleton.jpg

When will an objective report be published analysing these remains please?

Thanks -

Ric



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> > Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> > Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
> > George
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think so. I'm talking about damage to the spinal cord, which I think (only think) is usually referred to as a broken back, but I'd need someone with a medical degree to tell me for sure. Bending him over a packhorse wouldn't damage the vertebrae, but it could do severe damage to the spinal cord if he were forced into an unnatural position. There was definitely a CT scan. I don't know about an X-ray.
>
> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective analyst) is not seeing.
>
> Carol
>

There is that one indeed Carol, but I was also thinking of the Lady
Bessy one.
Paul

On 17/02/2013 16:28, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> When was the Ballad written? Could it have simply been doing another
>> rewrite of history to reflect the fact that William had been executed for treason and step father Thomas was still in place? If Vergil used the Ballad as a source perhaps we can understand why he was wrong and why the legend about Thomas crowning Tudor has persisted.
> Carol responds:
>
> Which ballad are you referring to, Paul? I was quoting Vergil, who began drafting his Anglia Historiae around 1504, at which point Sir William had been dead since 1495, so, yes, he (or his source for Bosworth, Henry) could have rewritten history to that effect. However, he does have Sir William coming to Henry's "reskew," but he also has Richard's household knights fleeing the field, which is almost certainly false.
>
> "The Ballad of Bosworth Field" (pro-Stanley propaganda probably written by one of their followers) does not mention a marsh: http://www.r3.org/bosworth/ballad2.html
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

The spinal cord is made of nervous tissue (it's a dorsal nerve tube) and filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The outer nervous tissue is referred to as white matter, while the inner tissue is referred to as gray matter. The gray matter is composed of neuron bodies and the white matter is composed of axonal projections. This unfortunately means it has dissolved and so can't be analyzed.

If someone broke Richard's back, the spinous process (what looks like a sort of 'handle' on each vertebrae -- Google for 'structure of vertebrae' to see this) of each affected vertebrae would definitely be visibly damaged. That damage would easily be visible to someone trained to know what it is. Dr. Oops is not trained to recognize or analyze this.

The damage/wear caused by scoliosis to the vertebrae would be different. Dr. Oops is not trained to recognize or analyze this.

At the moment, I'm thinking they probably didn't break his back because they didn't need to. He wasn't slung over the narrow back of a child's pony. The average horse's back would have been broad enough to let the body hang in the same position of an adult doing a back bend. Really uncomfortable in life, not so much after death.

~Weds


George wrote:

> > Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
> > Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra

> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think so. I'm talking about damage to the spinal cord, which I think (only think) is usually referred to as a broken back, but I'd need someone with a medical degree to tell me for sure. Bending him over a packhorse wouldn't damage the vertebrae, but it could do severe damage to the spinal cord if he were forced into an unnatural position. There was definitely a CT scan. I don't know about an X-ray.
>
> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective analyst) is not seeing.

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> There is that one indeed Carol, but I was also thinking of the Lady
> Bessy one.

Carol responds:

Since that ballad states that Richard had "the best duke in all the land" (the Duke of Bucking ham!) beheaded at Salisbury "not three years into his reign" (actually closer to five months into his reign; we all know that he reigned only twenty-six months), I wouldn't give it much credence. It also has "little" Lady Bessy mourning him and wanting revenge against Richard for this evil deed. Worse, it presents "the Lady Bessy" as the lover of Henry Tudor and puts completely imaginary words into her mouth. It dates to the sixteenth century and is completely unhistorical despite claims that it reflects a first-person viewpoint in the Bosworth section.

The words it attributes to King Richard seem to be an expansion of the ones in the other ballad. There are two rather different versions, but neither says anything about a marsh or a hawthorn bush or even a Stanley handing Henry the crown. I can't copy the .pdf version, but here's the relevant part of the .html version. A knight, Sir William Harrington, tries to persuade Richard to ride away and save his life. Then we have Richard speaking, followed by a very brief account that doesn't sound to me like that of an eyewitness:

"giue me my battell axe in my hand,
& sett my crowne on my head so hye!
ffor by him that made both sunn & moone,
King of England this day I will dye!"

besides his head thé hewed the crowne,
& dange on him as they were wood;
thé stroke his Basnett to his head
vntill his braines came out with blood.

thé carryed him naked vnto Leicester,
& buckeled his haire vnder his chin.
Bessye mett him with merry cheere;
these were they words shee sayd to him:

"how likest thou they slaying of my brethren twaine?"
she spake these words to him alowde:
"now are wee wroken vppon thee heere!
welcome, gentle vnckle, home!"

That last part is, of course, completely imaginary. Crediting this ballad as having any historical validity whatever is, to my mind, like crediting Sir Thomas More's "History" as giving us a true picture of the historical Richard.

Carol

[Grinning.] Beg pardon, Carol, it was a dirty joke, not a serious comment.

I'm as convinced as I am of sunrise that forensics experts, both of ancient and modern remains, are lining up for a look at the evidence. By no means is Dr. Oops going to have the final say. As far as whether the king's body was loaded onto the pack horse ventrally or dorsally (to put it into physiological terminology), I think that's a call that only the most expert of experts could possibly make; there is a complete absence of soft tissue with the skeleton and it's hard enough to determine the scope of injury when the body is intact. We should learn more at the conference on March 2; they'll probably announce who all will be granted access to the evidence.

The topics experts will want to explore in detail will include the extent of the scoliosis, whether it would have limited the king's activities, what can be discerned of the injuries still evident on the skeleton, and whether the burial had any effect on the remains (such as pushing the spinal column out of line). I would anticipate that the discussions and counter-discussions will occupy several years, if not decades.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> McJohn wrote:
> >
> > Dunno, I had my suspicions about that left radius.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> First, look at his hands in the paintings. He would not have put them on view conspicuously if there were anything wrong. Second, there's controlling a warhorse. Third, the team--even Appleby--said that his arms were the same size, and she would have jumped on the radius (not literally) if anything were wrong with it. And fourth, the withered arm, which we should not even be talking about since it has been dismissed as pure legend, was invented nearly thirty years later by that highly inventive writer of fiction, Sir Thomas More. It makes me almost ill to think that Richard's supporters are giving such support to the Tudorites. I see nothing whatever wrong with the radius. If you mean the scapula, it appears to have been damaged in the grave, suggesting that Jo is wrong about the bones not shifting as also indicated by the missing sternum. There is also damage to the left tibia that could not have occurred in life and the left fibula is missing.
>
> Carol
>

What damage to the vertebrae?do you have a different version of King in a Carpark, as this is the only place that she has discussed the skeletal reminds and I have looked closely at my copy for such a statement to date have not seen it?
Until a radiologist takes a look at the vertebrae it really is pure speculation you may as well say he also was found with any number of unreported unnoticed and undocumented conditions and was whistling "rule Britannia "
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2013, at 10:46 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> Carol wrote:
>
>
> > Which brings me back to my original question, if his back was broken (and most thirty-two-year-old men even without scoliosis are not sufficiently flexible to do a backbend with or without a horse to support them), would that injury show up in the skeleton?
>
> Weds here:
> If his back was broken, I *think* it would show up where his spine met his pelvis.
>
> Then again, if the horse was broad-backed, mebbe they wouldn't need to break his back. (In my happy place, the horse was very broad-backed.)
>
> Carol wrote:
>
> > Might it have caused the damage to the vertebrae that Jo Appleby showed, or might it have made it easier to squash his body into a too-small grave?
>
> I don't know what damage Jo Appleby showed. If it's the damage on the corners of the vertebrae...wouldn't that be from the scoliosis? I watched the documentary, but haven't been able to screw up my courage to watch the pres conference. Where's the damage?
>
> As to making it easier to squash the body into a too-small grave, mebbe, because if the back were broken the lower body would no longer be attached to the torso, so the body would be extremely floppy and difficult to handle. (And after three days in the August heat, that's be one more thing making the body more difficult and disgusting to handle. Skin slippage is bad enough without adding this to it.)
>
> Why do we torture ourselves with these details? It occurred to me yesterday that we now know far more than all of England did in 1485 about what happened to him.
>
> ~Weds
>
>

I do hope that the "whoops" has not jeopardized her career, we all have whoops moments, its called learning, I would like to bet that any future work would be exemplary and we really do need qualified experts in this difficult and so often ignored area.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:44 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I agree with you about Dr. A. I do wonder if her technique and rush to judgement, may be a career stopper, rather than the star in her resume?
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
>>
>> OK, the imp is up, that wasn't what I typed, or means. I wonder I'd Dr. A. even studied the various suppositions?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I very much doubt it. They didn't even expect to find a body, let alone Richard III, which might account for her unprofessional reaction (blurting out on camera to poor Philippa that he was a "hunchback." Someone said that she's young. I don't have a birthdate for her, but she received her PhD in 2008, which means that she has less than five years experience.
>
> BTW, my chiropractor, who hasn't seen the website yet, shook his head in disbelief when he heard that someone had described scoliosis as a hunchback. To him, they were obviously very different conditions. Dr. A. apparently "knew" Richard only from Shakespeare and thought that they were hunting for a murderous hunchback, which would explain her (apparent) disdain of Philippa. It seems that someone, presumably Lin Foxhall, later informed her of the raised shoulder description (Rous) and the delicate limbs (von Popellau) and she tried to shape her "hunchback" with "feminine" bones terminology to fit those descriptions, but the damage was done.
>
> Yes, I know that I'm speculating. I can't possibly know what Jo Appleby thought. I do believe, however, that her carelessness in more than one respect can only be explained by inexperience and a lack of understanding of the historical Richard and the importance of getting everything right.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> What damage to the vertebrae? do you have a different version of King in a Carpark, as this is the only place that she has discussed the skeletal reminds and I have looked closely at my copy for such a statement to date have not seen it?
>[snip]

Carol responds:

Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg

However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).

BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:

http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

Carol

Carol
I have sent a copy of these photos to my buddy a radiologist, and I will keep you posted on what he says.
One thing that he mentions is that this is a photo not a X-ray or CTI and this is the real detail that is needed to show scoliosis or degradation due to naturally being buried for > 500 years as well as any trauma to the vertebra .
George


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > What damage to the vertebrae? do you have a different version of King in a Carpark, as this is the only place that she has discussed the skeletal reminds and I have looked closely at my copy for such a statement to date have not seen it?
> >[snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
>
> http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
>
> However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
>
> BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
>
> http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
>
> Carol
>
>

Looking forward to it, George!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:16 PM, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:

> Carol
> I have sent a copy of these photos to my buddy a radiologist, and I will keep you posted on what he says.
> One thing that he mentions is that this is a photo not a X-ray or CTI and this is the real detail that is needed to show scoliosis or degradation due to naturally being buried for > 500 years as well as any trauma to the vertebra .
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > George Butterfield wrote:
> > >
> > > What damage to the vertebrae? do you have a different version of King in a Carpark, as this is the only place that she has discussed the skeletal reminds and I have looked closely at my copy for such a statement to date have not seen it?
> > >[snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
> >
> > http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
> >
> > However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
> >
> > BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
> >
> > http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Sing for the King!

Could you sing for the King? Leicester Cathedral Choir will be singing at the ceremonies to be held in the Cathedral surrounding the re-interment of King Richard III in Spring 2014. We need committed and enthusiastic boys and girls to join the choir, which is already very successful and singing regularly at major events. We will be holding auditions for boys and girls aged seven and above on Saturday 9 March.

To book your place for an audition on 9 March and for more information about the choir and what will be involved, contact Chris Johns on 0116 261 5374 or 07982 444 087 or email chris.johns@...

The Loveliest Leicestershire White Rose

To mark the discovery of the burial place of Richard III, Leicester Cathedral have launched a competition in association with Coles Nurseries to find the Loveliest Leicestershire White Rose.

Richard III died at the Battle of Bosworth on August 22, 1485, the final battle of what was called the War of the Roses. The emblem of his family, the House of York, was a white rose. Every year on the anniversary of his death white roses are placed on his memorial stone in Leicester Cathedral.

The competition is open to rose growers living in Leicestershire and to gardeners amateur or professional in the city and county. Entries do not have to be new strains of white roses, as the judges will be looking for the most perfect specimen.

The deadline for entries and judging date will be 6 July 2013 which is also the anniversary of the coronation of Richard III in 1483. The prize will be £100 in vouchers and the winner will also be a guest of honour at the simple anniversary service which will be held on the morning of 22 August 2013. This year, the winning bloom will be displayed at the memorial stone to King Richard.

The judging panel will include James Coles (Coles Nurseries), Barry Naylor (Acting Dean of Leicester) and the Bishop of Leicester.

Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of Leicester, said: "Leicester Cathedral is delighted to support an initiative that reflects the considerable public interest in Richard III. We hope this will encourage many people to get out into their gardens and grow a bloom fit for a King."

The Rt Revd Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, said: "The white rose which was such a potent symbol in the War of the Roses, now becomes a sign of our unity and of our desire for peace as we prepare to lay King Richard III to rest."

James Coles, Managing Director Coles Nurseries, said: "As a family business with strong connections to Leicester Cathedral and Leicestershire, we are thrilled to be associated with this competition as we take our first steps into our Centenary Year. As a major supplier of trees, shrubs and roses to markets across the country, we await with interest the rose that befits a King of England."

For an application form please contact claire.recordon@... or call 0116 261 5368.


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> Looking forward to it, George!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:16 PM, George Butterfield gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> > Carol
> > I have sent a copy of these photos to my buddy a radiologist, and I will keep you posted on what he says.
> > One thing that he mentions is that this is a photo not a X-ray or CTI and this is the real detail that is needed to show scoliosis or degradation due to naturally being buried for > 500 years as well as any trauma to the vertebra .
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2013, at 6:04 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > George Butterfield wrote:
> > > >
> > > > What damage to the vertebrae? do you have a different version of King in a Carpark, as this is the only place that she has discussed the skeletal reminds and I have looked closely at my copy for such a statement to date have not seen it?
> > > >[snip]
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
> > >
> > > http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
> > >
> > > However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
> > >
> > > BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
> > >
> > > http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Carol
> I have sent a copy of these photos to my buddy a radiologist, and I will keep you posted on what he says.
> One thing that he mentions is that this is a photo not a X-ray or CTI and this is the real detail that is needed to show scoliosis or degradation due to naturally being buried for 500 years as well as any trauma to the vertebra.
> George

Carol responds:

Thanks, George. It will be interesting to hear from someone who knows about bones and has no stake in the debate about Richard (and no concerns about reputation and funding). He seems to be the ideal analyst in terms of both knowledge and objectivity. If he's sufficiently interested, maybe you could send him some links to articles and/or the press conference.

I'm also, of course, eager to hear what independent experts who have seen the actual skeleton will say.

Carol

Prior to joining the dark side and becoming a Dr. He taught history and was a history major.
Do you have any site that would give more detail?
George


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:11 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Carol
> > I have sent a copy of these photos to my buddy a radiologist, and I will keep you posted on what he says.
> > One thing that he mentions is that this is a photo not a X-ray or CTI and this is the real detail that is needed to show scoliosis or degradation due to naturally being buried for 500 years as well as any trauma to the vertebra.
> > George
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, George. It will be interesting to hear from someone who knows about bones and has no stake in the debate about Richard (and no concerns about reputation and funding). He seems to be the ideal analyst in terms of both knowledge and objectivity. If he's sufficiently interested, maybe you could send him some links to articles and/or the press conference.
>
> I'm also, of course, eager to hear what independent experts who have seen the actual skeleton will say.
>
> Carol
>
>

A google-search for scoliosis shows that 's' shaped curvature with slightly uneven shoulders and hips. The raised shoulder is pronounced, prominent, only really when bending forwards. It seems to me that latter years exaggerated Richard's curvature of the spine after the fashion of a cruel caricature, which would be in keeping with the antique anti-Ricardian propaganda of the day.

But let Richard's mortal remains have the final say, as long as they can be interpreted [plea] by neutral, experienced and reliable professionals.

PG



--- In , Florence Dove <mdove9@...> wrote:
>
> As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Prior to joining the dark side and becoming a Dr. He taught history and was a history major.
> Do you have any site that would give more detail?
> George

Carol responds:

Probably the official U of Leicester site is the place to start: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

That way he can compare their findings to his own conclusions. If he's sufficiently interested, he can view the press conference, which gives the descriptions by the hostile Rous and the friendly von Popellau, from that same site.

If he's at all interested in the controversy after all that, he might want to explore the Richard III Society sites:

http://www.richardiii.net/

and http://www.r3.org/ (especially the online library link)

Of the spate of recently published online articles, the two best (in my view) are the very scholarly but unfortunately titled "Richard Crookback"

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

and the Bert(ram) Fields article

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html

That should keep him busy for awhile. If he wants opposing views, you can always recommend Newsweek. I can provide the URLs if he doesn't have a subscription.

Carol

"Phaeton G" <wrote:

> A google-search for scoliosis shows that 's' shaped curvature with slightly uneven shoulders and hips. The raised shoulder is pronounced, prominent, only really when bending forwards. It seems to me that latter years exaggerated Richard's curvature of the spine after the fashion of a cruel caricature, which would be in keeping with the antique anti-Ricardian propaganda of the day.

Carol responds:

Except that the only reference in the chronicles until Vergil is Rous's one shoulder higher than the other. We've been through this over and over. You might to read old posts to this forum starting from February 4. Even his naked body paraded through the streets seems not to have influenced these descriptions. Early Tudor chronicles other than Rous and hostile to Richard in other respects mention no deformity. With the later Tudor chroniclers, influenced by More (who never intended to publish his "history"), it spins out of control.

I know that it's a challenge to wade through thousands of messages, but you might find it rewarding. Or someone else may have the energy to sum up what we've already said. As for me, I'd rather post on new topics.

Carol


Carol

Many thanks & with respect, surely a thorough examination of Richard's remains are at this very moment being carried out, the report on which will finally establish the truth here?

Ric



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Phaeton G" <wrote:
>
> > A google-search for scoliosis shows that 's' shaped curvature with slightly uneven shoulders and hips. The raised shoulder is pronounced, prominent, only really when bending forwards. It seems to me that latter years exaggerated Richard's curvature of the spine after the fashion of a cruel caricature, which would be in keeping with the antique anti-Ricardian propaganda of the day.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Except that the only reference in the chronicles until Vergil is Rous's one shoulder higher than the other. We've been through this over and over. You might to read old posts to this forum starting from February 4. Even his naked body paraded through the streets seems not to have influenced these descriptions. Early Tudor chronicles other than Rous and hostile to Richard in other respects mention no deformity. With the later Tudor chroniclers, influenced by More (who never intended to publish his "history"), it spins out of control.
>
> I know that it's a challenge to wade through thousands of messages, but you might find it rewarding. Or someone else may have the energy to sum up what we've already said. As for me, I'd rather post on new topics.
>
> Carol

The good doctor may have been trying to say that the vertebrae showed damage consistent with scoliosis. Duh...the little wing bones on either side of each affected vertebrae are going to do that. But it doesn't necessarily mean his condition was severe. It does illustrate he had the condition.

I really have a problem with the way she's laid out the spine. There are no gaps between the vertebrae of the spine of a living person, but if you look at the illo specified below, there are huge gaps.

The vertebrae should fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. If there's damage/wear to the bottom of one, matching damage will be on the top of the next vertebrae. The angles will be flush against one another right down the spine. We don't have that here.

It's just not true to life. I could take the vertebrae into Photoshop and line them up flush with one another right down the line, and betcha I come up with less of a curvature than she has just by taking out the spaces between the bones and lining up the angles at the tops and bottoms of all the vertebrae. Does that mean it's accurate? Nope. But he probably wouldn't have such a severe

And hey, those ribs aren't in any sort of a correct position either. They're flat on the table, no hope there.

Whoever said we need a 3D representation of his skeleton that's done by a qualified specialist/expert is right. We do.

At this point, everyone here who knows Photoshop or some other photo manipulation program should take this photo and try lining up the vertebrae like tight little puzzle pieces. Then we'll compare all the results and see what we get.

Hey, I'm willing.

As for the broken back, I wouldn't begin to venture a guess on 500-year-old bones. They still need that surgeon.

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
>
> http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
>
> However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
>
> BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
>
> http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
>
> Carol
>

I looked everywhere on the Uni site and apart from finding out how to enroll it told me very little about the scientific data on the CT scan, I would love some suggestions
George


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 7:55 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Prior to joining the dark side and becoming a Dr. He taught history and was a history major.
> > Do you have any site that would give more detail?
> > George
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Probably the official U of Leicester site is the place to start: http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii
>
> That way he can compare their findings to his own conclusions. If he's sufficiently interested, he can view the press conference, which gives the descriptions by the hostile Rous and the friendly von Popellau, from that same site.
>
> If he's at all interested in the controversy after all that, he might want to explore the Richard III Society sites:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/
>
> and http://www.r3.org/ (especially the online library link)
>
> Of the spate of recently published online articles, the two best (in my view) are the very scholarly but unfortunately titled "Richard Crookback"
>
> http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1208757.ece
>
> and the Bert(ram) Fields article
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/13/unraveling-king-richard-iii-s-secrets.html
>
> That should keep him busy for awhile. If he wants opposing views, you can always recommend Newsweek. I can provide the URLs if he doesn't have a subscription.
>
> Carol
>
>

--- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@...> wrote:
>
> Many thanks & with respect, surely a thorough examination of Richard's remains are at this very moment being carried out, the report on which will finally establish the truth here?
>
> Ric

Carol responds:

It's unlikely that one report will establish the truth. I can't speak for everyone here, but several of us, including me, have expressed the hope that numerous experts, including forensic anthropologists, will examine the bones before they are interred. We expect not peer-reviewed articles by the Leicester team but responses by other experts. Some of us, including me, have also expressed the hope for a replica of the skeleton to be arranged as it was in life rather than an attempt to recreate the position of the bones as they were in the grave since, as someone pointed out, scoliosis is three dimensional. I don't know if you're familiar with the reconstructions that have been made of Lucy (Australopithecus Afaransis), the Nariokotome Boy (Ho9mo erectus or ergaster), and a Neanderthal man, but surely a similar reconstruction could be made (perhaps by an independent team) of Richard's body so that we can see how his back and shoulders would have appeared in life, clothed and unclothed. When all that has been done, many questions will be answered. As things are, we're left wondering why the descriptions of Richard, even those published after he was dead and his naked body had been exposed to view, indicate either no deformity or just a raised shoulder and why enemies, including Archbishop Morton and Philippe de Commines, who were known to have seen him (Morton often) published no descriptions of any deformity when deformity was associated with villainy and their goal was to blacken his name.

So, to repeat, an additional report by the University of Leicester team, which has made several mistakes already in rushing through what they thought would be a routine dig with a million-to-one chance of discovering Richard, will not settle the question. I expect a lot of debate for years to come. Meantime, Jo Appleby's use of "hunchback" has caused a great deal of harm by reinforcing Tudor myth, and Lin Foxhall's attempts to distinguish scoliosis from kyphosis seem to have gone largely unheard.

Carol

Ric
Though it would appear that experts in the field are still conducting extensive tests on the remains of R3 I feel that the society at large has a history of questioning both current and past expert knowledge .
Though it was the university of Leicester that unearthed R3 it was the independent work of a " unqualified" amateur who lead to the wonderful discovery.
Had the experts not been cajoled ( and financed) into digging in the car park Richard III would still have been thrown over a bridge!
Independent thought and scholarship can and does produce results.
I will continue to read all suggestions even ones I feel are far out there!
George


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 9:07 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , "Phaeton G" wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks & with respect, surely a thorough examination of Richard's remains are at this very moment being carried out, the report on which will finally establish the truth here?
> >
> > Ric
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's unlikely that one report will establish the truth. I can't speak for everyone here, but several of us, including me, have expressed the hope that numerous experts, including forensic anthropologists, will examine the bones before they are interred. We expect not peer-reviewed articles by the Leicester team but responses by other experts. Some of us, including me, have also expressed the hope for a replica of the skeleton to be arranged as it was in life rather than an attempt to recreate the position of the bones as they were in the grave since, as someone pointed out, scoliosis is three dimensional. I don't know if you're familiar with the reconstructions that have been made of Lucy (Australopithecus Afaransis), the Nariokotome Boy (Ho9mo erectus or ergaster), and a Neanderthal man, but surely a similar reconstruction could be made (perhaps by an independent team) of Richard's body so that we can see how his back and shoulders would have appeared in life, clothed and unclothed. When all that has been done, many questions will be answered. As things are, we're left wondering why the descriptions of Richard, even those published after he was dead and his naked body had been exposed to view, indicate either no deformity or just a raised shoulder and why enemies, including Archbishop Morton and Philippe de Commines, who were known to have seen him (Morton often) published no descriptions of any deformity when deformity was associated with villainy and their goal was to blacken his name.
>
> So, to repeat, an additional report by the University of Leicester team, which has made several mistakes already in rushing through what they thought would be a routine dig with a million-to-one chance of discovering Richard, will not settle the question. I expect a lot of debate for years to come. Meantime, Jo Appleby's use of "hunchback" has caused a great deal of harm by reinforcing Tudor myth, and Lin Foxhall's attempts to distinguish scoliosis from kyphosis seem to have gone largely unheard.
>
> Carol
>
>

It's common to lay out ancient skeletal remains so that the individual pieces have not the remotest possibility of touching, lest they get damaged. Any depiction of how everything fits together is provided by reconstructions. I don't think we have a set of high enough resolution photos to do an accurate reconstruction in Photoshop. You'd need closeups of each individual vertebra to even begin to fit them all together. Even then, it would probably be deceptive; a 3D reconstruction is a much better bet in this instance.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> The good doctor may have been trying to say that the vertebrae showed damage consistent with scoliosis. Duh...the little wing bones on either side of each affected vertebrae are going to do that. But it doesn't necessarily mean his condition was severe. It does illustrate he had the condition.
>
> I really have a problem with the way she's laid out the spine. There are no gaps between the vertebrae of the spine of a living person, but if you look at the illo specified below, there are huge gaps.
>
> The vertebrae should fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. If there's damage/wear to the bottom of one, matching damage will be on the top of the next vertebrae. The angles will be flush against one another right down the spine. We don't have that here.
>
> It's just not true to life. I could take the vertebrae into Photoshop and line them up flush with one another right down the line, and betcha I come up with less of a curvature than she has just by taking out the spaces between the bones and lining up the angles at the tops and bottoms of all the vertebrae. Does that mean it's accurate? Nope. But he probably wouldn't have such a severe
>
> And hey, those ribs aren't in any sort of a correct position either. They're flat on the table, no hope there.
>
> Whoever said we need a 3D representation of his skeleton that's done by a qualified specialist/expert is right. We do.
>
> At this point, everyone here who knows Photoshop or some other photo manipulation program should take this photo and try lining up the vertebrae like tight little puzzle pieces. Then we'll compare all the results and see what we get.
>
> Hey, I'm willing.
>
> As for the broken back, I wouldn't begin to venture a guess on 500-year-old bones. They still need that surgeon.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>
> > Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
> >
> > http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
> >
> > However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
> >
> > BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
> >
> > http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I totally agree
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 9:38 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> It's common to lay out ancient skeletal remains so that the individual pieces have not the remotest possibility of touching, lest they get damaged. Any depiction of how everything fits together is provided by reconstructions. I don't think we have a set of high enough resolution photos to do an accurate reconstruction in Photoshop. You'd need closeups of each individual vertebra to even begin to fit them all together. Even then, it would probably be deceptive; a 3D reconstruction is a much better bet in this instance.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" wrote:
> >
> > The good doctor may have been trying to say that the vertebrae showed damage consistent with scoliosis. Duh...the little wing bones on either side of each affected vertebrae are going to do that. But it doesn't necessarily mean his condition was severe. It does illustrate he had the condition.
> >
> > I really have a problem with the way she's laid out the spine. There are no gaps between the vertebrae of the spine of a living person, but if you look at the illo specified below, there are huge gaps.
> >
> > The vertebrae should fit together like jigsaw puzzle pieces. If there's damage/wear to the bottom of one, matching damage will be on the top of the next vertebrae. The angles will be flush against one another right down the spine. We don't have that here.
> >
> > It's just not true to life. I could take the vertebrae into Photoshop and line them up flush with one another right down the line, and betcha I come up with less of a curvature than she has just by taking out the spaces between the bones and lining up the angles at the tops and bottoms of all the vertebrae. Does that mean it's accurate? Nope. But he probably wouldn't have such a severe
> >
> > And hey, those ribs aren't in any sort of a correct position either. They're flat on the table, no hope there.
> >
> > Whoever said we need a 3D representation of his skeleton that's done by a qualified specialist/expert is right. We do.
> >
> > At this point, everyone here who knows Photoshop or some other photo manipulation program should take this photo and try lining up the vertebrae like tight little puzzle pieces. Then we'll compare all the results and see what we get.
> >
> > Hey, I'm willing.
> >
> > As for the broken back, I wouldn't begin to venture a guess on 500-year-old bones. They still need that surgeon.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, George. This is the photo that I had in mind, and, yes, Jo Appleby set them aside to illustrate the "deformity" (I certainly did not invent the idea):
> > >
> > > http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130204154429-richard-iii-remains-7-horizontal-gallery.jpg
> > >
> > > However, after looking at the two vertebrae, I concede that they don't show signs of breakage. Then, again, I still don't know what a broken back entails (and I still think that the layout of the bones on the table gives a misleading indication of how the skeleton would appear upright).
> > >
> > > BTW, here is the biggest photo of the skeleton that I know of, with commentary, if anyone is still interested in discussing the skeleton:
> > >
> > > http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> I looked everywhere on the Uni site and apart from finding out how to enroll it told me very little about the scientific data on the CT scan, I would love some suggestions

Carol responds:

I don't know anything about a CT scan, but all the findings and announcements, as well as the video of the press conference are at the link I gave you:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii

Carol

McJohn wrote:
>
> It's common to lay out ancient skeletal remains so that the individual pieces have not the remotest possibility of touching, lest they get damaged. Any depiction of how everything fits together is provided by reconstructions. I don't think we have a set of high enough resolution photos to do an accurate reconstruction in Photoshop. You'd need closeups of each individual vertebra to even begin to fit them all together. Even then, it would probably be deceptive; a 3D reconstruction is a much better bet in this instance.

Carol responds:

And we know that they're working on it. Anyone have that URL so we can post it again?

Carol

Carol earlier:
>
> And we know that they're working on it [a 3-D reconstruction of the skeleton}. Anyone have that URL so we can post it again?
>
Carol again:

Never mind. Posted prematurely. I found it myself. George, is this the article you're looking for?

http://optics.org/news/4/2/10

Carol

No this just deals with the scull and mentions the possibility of a full 3d reconstruction I need the CT scan info on the spine otherwise its just guessing without the full details.
G




Sent from my iPad

On Feb 17, 2013, at 10:09 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> >
> > And we know that they're working on it [a 3-D reconstruction of the skeleton}. Anyone have that URL so we can post it again?
> >
> Carol again:
>
> Never mind. Posted prematurely. I found it myself. George, is this the article you're looking for?
>
> http://optics.org/news/4/2/10
>
> Carol
>
>

I still find this continuing discussion of the treatment of Richard's
body after death distasteful, but can I just say that the end of
Olivier's version of the play shows him slung over a horse and hands and
feet tied together to prevent him from falling off. This was researched
by the horse master Bernard Hepton who later became an actor [a
wonderful Cranmer in Henry VIII and his Six Wives on BBC tv] and who I
worked with twice and had some good chats about the film with.
Paul


On 17/02/2013 19:19, wednesday_mc wrote:
> The spinal cord is made of nervous tissue (it's a dorsal nerve tube) and filled with cerebrospinal fluid. The outer nervous tissue is referred to as white matter, while the inner tissue is referred to as gray matter. The gray matter is composed of neuron bodies and the white matter is composed of axonal projections. This unfortunately means it has dissolved and so can't be analyzed.
>
> If someone broke Richard's back, the spinous process (what looks like a sort of 'handle' on each vertebrae -- Google for 'structure of vertebrae' to see this) of each affected vertebrae would definitely be visibly damaged. That damage would easily be visible to someone trained to know what it is. Dr. Oops is not trained to recognize or analyze this.
>
> The damage/wear caused by scoliosis to the vertebrae would be different. Dr. Oops is not trained to recognize or analyze this.
>
> At the moment, I'm thinking they probably didn't break his back because they didn't need to. He wasn't slung over the narrow back of a child's pony. The average horse's back would have been broad enough to let the body hang in the same position of an adult doing a back bend. Really uncomfortable in life, not so much after death.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> George wrote:
>
>>> Wasn't the entire skeleton of R3 both x-rated and submitted to CT no one on the team has said anything about any broken bones other than ribs
>>> Surely something as obvious as a broken back would cause major fractures to his vertebra
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I don't think so. I'm talking about damage to the spinal cord, which I think (only think) is usually referred to as a broken back, but I'd need someone with a medical degree to tell me for sure. Bending him over a packhorse wouldn't damage the vertebrae, but it could do severe damage to the spinal cord if he were forced into an unnatural position. There was definitely a CT scan. I don't know about an X-ray.
>>
>> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective analyst) is not seeing.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Historical? No I wasn't suggesting that, but I was trying to say it
showed changing attitudes to the Stanleys and the part they played in
the battle and after.
Paul

On 17/02/2013 19:31, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> There is that one indeed Carol, but I was also thinking of the Lady
>> Bessy one.
> Carol responds:
>
> Since that ballad states that Richard had "the best duke in all the land" (the Duke of Bucking ham!) beheaded at Salisbury "not three years into his reign" (actually closer to five months into his reign; we all know that he reigned only twenty-six months), I wouldn't give it much credence. It also has "little" Lady Bessy mourning him and wanting revenge against Richard for this evil deed. Worse, it presents "the Lady Bessy" as the lover of Henry Tudor and puts completely imaginary words into her mouth. It dates to the sixteenth century and is completely unhistorical despite claims that it reflects a first-person viewpoint in the Bosworth section.
>
> The words it attributes to King Richard seem to be an expansion of the ones in the other ballad. There are two rather different versions, but neither says anything about a marsh or a hawthorn bush or even a Stanley handing Henry the crown. I can't copy the .pdf version, but here's the relevant part of the .html version. A knight, Sir William Harrington, tries to persuade Richard to ride away and save his life. Then we have Richard speaking, followed by a very brief account that doesn't sound to me like that of an eyewitness:
>
> "giue me my battell axe in my hand,
> & sett my crowne on my head so hye!
> ffor by him that made both sunn & moone,
> King of England this day I will dye!"
>
> besides his head thé hewed the crowne,
> & dange on him as they were wood;
> thé stroke his Basnett to his head
> vntill his braines came out with blood.
>
> thé carryed him naked vnto Leicester,
> & buckeled his haire vnder his chin.
> Bessye mett him with merry cheere;
> these were they words shee sayd to him:
>
> "how likest thou they slaying of my brethren twaine?"
> she spake these words to him alowde:
> "now are wee wroken vppon thee heere!
> welcome, gentle vnckle, home!"
>
> That last part is, of course, completely imaginary. Crediting this ballad as having any historical validity whatever is, to my mind, like crediting Sir Thomas More's "History" as giving us a true picture of the historical Richard.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

>> Carol responds:
>>
>> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
>> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that
>> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
>> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping
>> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a
>> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
>> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
>> analyst) is not seeing.

Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he had
it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's walking
away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling bouts
of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I suppose
massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C. Also
the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those who
could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support as
if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all the
little muscles which support the spine would have been very well-developed,
which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.

I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two drawings
and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the
same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll
show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him
with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
depressed and as such a lot lower.

So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there would
be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour of
his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder slightly
higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger right
clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because it
would have slightly farther to reach.

His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to post
mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis was
triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which can
(it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
following an injury.

The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is difficult
to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would have
little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was writing
left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right, because
otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to become
right-handed.

I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was
cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes,
extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has
his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.

Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now
have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he
would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the
programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we
now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself,
must have been a dwarf.

Watching the Programme 'Meet the Ancestors' seems to show a much more careful approach to handling skeletal remains [Even those of 'Unknowns & Multiple burials.] 

Why in this case more care was NOT Taken, particularly in view of the importance of same seems beyond belief. 

Regarding the 'Bones of the Front Rib Cage' [Sternum] are, at least in part, more prone to rot away as they are partly 'Cartilage' NOT bone.

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Sunday, 17 February 2013, 15:40
>Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton
>
>I hope they realize and recognize what a travesty this has been, as far as handling the remains. He did stress that the body was quickly covered again, but yes, why the heavy handed methodology  when they finally decided it was time to begin the discovery of who the remains really were.
>
>
>
>On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:38 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>That's very interesting. We need as much information as possible from professionals with experience. Dr Appleby and her colleague in the film, the forensic pathologist, appeared over keen to jump to conclusions and make rash comments, which have only reinforced the opinions of the detractors who continue to harp on about the "hunchback" point of view. They appeared like junior members of the team trying to show off in front of the cameras, and also, in Appleby's case, her lack of experience showed at the dig site. Why was she featured so strongly on the film? Weren't the remains found on the first day by one of the other members of the team, who apparently found a leg sticking out? That would imply that Appleby was called in after this, so why were they using such heavy equipment to move the earth in view of this, and more importantly, why was she wielding that hammer like thing when the correct procedure was to painstakingly remove the surrounding
earth slowly and minutely. It smacks of hastiness and lack of experience.
>Richard Buckley stressed from the start the unlikelihood of finding Richard, and, in addition, how rare that was as archaeologists did not go looking for specific persons. His aim, he said, was hopefully, to find the GreyFriars and find out more about Leicester. However, the mandate they had from the Richard III Society (we don't know whether the U of Leicester contributed to the dig) was specific and as luck would have it, was successful. However, if you listen to the comments from the University, it definitely suggests they did not expect much to come from the dig, which might explain why a junior member of staff was allocated. They might try to backtrack on that now as it is going to be very successful for them and they will gain much kudos both financially and academically in the future.
>
>BTW, Did anyone else notice that the narrator in the film gives the impression that the remains have not been touched for a couple of months until they are sent for the CAT scan? That would explain the delay as we were originally told December and the results were delayed until the beginning of February. And the lack of haste.
>I'm sure I heard it.
>Elaine
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Florence Dove wrote:
>>
>> As previously mentioned I had a visit yesterday with my orthopedic surgeon, showed him the images of Richard's skeleton, and asked about the scoliosis. After looking at the spine for a couple of minutes he allowed that given Richards warrior training and daily physical activity that the scoliosis might not have been noticeable except when Richard was unclothed and that his shoulders might not have been noticeably uneven either. The jury is still out. At this point we simply don't know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> No this just deals with the scull and mentions the possibility of a full 3d reconstruction I need the CT scan info on the spine otherwise its just guessing without the full details.

Carol responds:

Sorry, George. I'm not sure what you're looking for. If it's a scholarly article of photos of the CT scan, AFAIK, it hasn't appeared yet. I know that they're planning to publish in the peer-reviewed journal, Antiquities, and there's that meeting on March 2 that a lot of our British members are attending, but beyond that, I don't know what to say. Maybe you could try Googling exactly what you're looking for.

Carol

I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year old who is left handed!
G
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that
> >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping
> >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a
> >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> >> analyst) is not seeing.
>
> Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he had
> it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
> has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's walking
> away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling bouts
> of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I suppose
> massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C. Also
> the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those who
> could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support as
> if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all the
> little muscles which support the spine would have been very well-developed,
> which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
>
> I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two drawings
> and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
> which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
> shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the
> same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
> shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll
> show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him
> with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> depressed and as such a lot lower.
>
> So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there would
> be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour of
> his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder slightly
> higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger right
> clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because it
> would have slightly farther to reach.
>
> His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to post
> mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis was
> triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which can
> (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> following an injury.
>
> The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is difficult
> to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would have
> little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was writing
> left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right, because
> otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to become
> right-handed.
>
> I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
> have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was
> cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes,
> extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has
> his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
>
> Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now
> have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he
> would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the
> programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
> extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we
> now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
> enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself,
> must have been a dwarf.
>
>

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Historical? No I wasn't suggesting that, but I was trying to say it
> showed changing attitudes to the Stanleys and the part they played in the battle and after.


Carol responds:

I see. All of Lady Bessy's pleas to "Ffather [sic] Stanley," for example? It's enough to make even a Tudor partisan smirk at the absurdity of it. Well, maybe not. But anyone who knows a smidgen of Ricardian history should know that she and Henry didn't even know each other and that virtually nobody (except perhaps his son) mourned Buckingham.

Anyway, it's certainly expanding on Lord Stanley's role. I wonder if "Lady Bessy" ever heard this ballad and, if so, what she thought of the role attributed to her. I hope for her sake that it was written after her death.

Carol

I would have to agree with George, my next up brother had a bad time with just this - and remained a 'lefty' anyway.

we get the word 'sinister' from the Latin for Left and we all know it has bad connotations, on the other hand Right is Dexter , from which
we get dexterous, and much nicer meaning

Aidan




________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)


 

I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year old who is left handed!
G
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:

> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that
> >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping
> >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a
> >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> >> analyst) is not seeing.
>
> Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he had
> it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
> has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's walking
> away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling bouts
> of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I suppose
> massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C. Also
> the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those who
> could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support as
> if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all the
> little muscles which support the spine would have been very well-developed,
> which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
>
> I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two drawings
> and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
> which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
> shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the
> same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
> shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll
> show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him
> with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> depressed and as such a lot lower.
>
> So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there would
> be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour of
> his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder slightly
> higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger right
> clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because it
> would have slightly farther to reach.
>
> His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to post
> mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis was
> triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which can
> (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> following an injury.
>
> The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is difficult
> to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would have
> little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was writing
> left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right, because
> otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to become
> right-handed.
>
> I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
> have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was
> cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes,
> extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has
> his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
>
> Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now
> have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he
> would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the
> programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
> extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we
> now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
> enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself,
> must have been a dwarf.
>
>

George,
I agree with the first part of your message that it would have been discouraged especially as the left, sinistra, not sure I've spelt that right, was seen or taught as having associations with the devil. Therefore, it would seem to rule it out as a theory, in particular, if you follow that he was probably taught by monks. However, as much as I hate to admit my age, I do fall into your specified age bracket and I can say that no one ever put pressure on me to use my right hand. One in ten of the population are left-handed.
Elaine

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
>
> I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year old who is left handed!
> G
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> > >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that
> > >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> > >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping
> > >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a
> > >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> > >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> > >> analyst) is not seeing.
> >
> > Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he had
> > it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
> > has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's walking
> > away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling bouts
> > of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> > afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I suppose
> > massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C. Also
> > the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> > armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those who
> > could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support as
> > if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all the
> > little muscles which support the spine would have been very well-developed,
> > which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
> >
> > I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> > contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two drawings
> > and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
> > which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
> > shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> > presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the
> > same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> > either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
> > shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll
> > show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him
> > with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> > depressed and as such a lot lower.
> >
> > So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there would
> > be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour of
> > his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder slightly
> > higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger right
> > clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because it
> > would have slightly farther to reach.
> >
> > His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to post
> > mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis was
> > triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which can
> > (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> > following an injury.
> >
> > The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> > Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is difficult
> > to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> > because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> > letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would have
> > little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was writing
> > left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right, because
> > otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to become
> > right-handed.
> >
> > I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> > before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
> > have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was
> > cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes,
> > extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> > great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has
> > his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
> >
> > Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now
> > have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he
> > would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the
> > programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
> > extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we
> > now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
> > enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself,
> > must have been a dwarf.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Elaine

Had you gone to a kind, gentle and understanding Boys Boarding school you
would have been "discouraged" from using your left hand!

G



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of ellrosa1452
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:42 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)





George,
I agree with the first part of your message that it would have been
discouraged especially as the left, sinistra, not sure I've spelt that
right, was seen or taught as having associations with the devil. Therefore,
it would seem to rule it out as a theory, in particular, if you follow that
he was probably taught by monks. However, as much as I hate to admit my age,
I do fall into your specified age bracket and I can say that no one ever put
pressure on me to use my right hand. One in ten of the population are
left-handed.
Elaine

--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
wrote:
>
>
> I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of
his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has
been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of
left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year
old who is left handed!
> G
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> > >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis
that
> > >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> > >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of
keeping
> > >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him
only a
> > >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> > >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> > >> analyst) is not seeing.
> >
> > Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he
had
> > it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he

> > has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's
walking
> > away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling
bouts
> > of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> > afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I
suppose
> > massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C.
Also
> > the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> > armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those
who
> > could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support
as
> > if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all
the
> > little muscles which support the spine would have been very
well-developed,
> > which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
> >
> > I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> > contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two
drawings
> > and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting

> > which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right

> > shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> > presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either
the
> > same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> > either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the
left
> > shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous
Roll
> > show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows
him
> > with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> > depressed and as such a lot lower.
> >
> > So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there
would
> > be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour
of
> > his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder
slightly
> > higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger
right
> > clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because
it
> > would have slightly farther to reach.
> >
> > His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to
post
> > mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis
was
> > triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which
can
> > (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> > following an injury.
> >
> > The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> > Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is
difficult
> > to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> > because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> > letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would
have
> > little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was
writing
> > left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right,
because
> > otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to
become
> > right-handed.
> >
> > I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> > before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to

> > have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it
was
> > cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue
eyes,
> > extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> > great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even
has
> > his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
> >
> > Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We
now
> > have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8"
he
> > would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on
the
> > programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the

> > extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft,
we
> > now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and
his
> > enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than
himself,
> > must have been a dwarf.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
> The group painting of Anthony Woodville presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
> shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply depressed and as such a lot lower.
[snip]
> I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes, extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
>
> Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself, must have been a dwarf.

Carol responds:

Interesting post. You must be our best-informed new member. It would be helpful if you would provide links to the paintings you mentioned (not the well-known portraits but the Anthony Woodville presentation, in which Richard in his ducal robes is unmistakeable, the de Wavrin painting (in which his identification with the middle-aged man in doublet and hose is somewhat doubtful; several of us think that he may be another man in the background), and the Salisbury Roll painting for the benefit of posters unfamiliar with them.

Regarding his coloring in the restoration, the eyes appear brown in most shots but a close-up photo shows them to be blue. If you like, I can try to link to that photo again, or you can just do a site search for a subject line with "eyes are blue" in it. I agree that they got the hair wrong, but it's just a wig and can easily be replaced by a more accurate one (lighter colored--I'm not sure about auburn) and slightly wavy.

Regarding his height, which surely wasn't four foot eight or it would have been remarked upon in his own time, we have many, many posts questioning the premature conclusions of the Leicester team, especially Jo Appleby, whom some posters have taken to calling Oops Appleby for her slip of the mattock. We're not happy with her use of "hunchback" as a synonym for scoliosis, either.

I won't get into left-handedness [I snipped that part of your post] except that since the left side was regarded as "sinister," I expect that his enemies would have jumped on that trait as well if he had shown it. I expect that his governess and tutors would have done their best to weed it out as well, and Rous, who had seen him and was trying to equate him with the Anti-Christ, would have mentioned that trait as well as the raised shoulder if he had observed it.

Carol

We have several "lefties" in our family, and it is not easy. Scissors, and lots of other things are difficult.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:40 AM, "Aidan Donnelly" <aidan.donnelly@...<mailto:aidan.donnelly@...>> wrote:



I would have to agree with George, my next up brother had a bad time with just this - and remained a 'lefty' anyway.

we get the word 'sinister' from the Latin for Left and we all know it has bad connotations, on the other hand Right is Dexter , from which
we get dexterous, and much nicer meaning

Aidan

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)




I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year old who is left handed!
G
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis that
> >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of keeping
> >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him only a
> >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> >> analyst) is not seeing.
>
> Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he had
> it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
> has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's walking
> away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling bouts
> of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I suppose
> massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C. Also
> the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those who
> could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support as
> if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all the
> little muscles which support the spine would have been very well-developed,
> which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
>
> I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two drawings
> and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
> which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
> shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either the
> same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the left
> shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous Roll
> show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows him
> with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> depressed and as such a lot lower.
>
> So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there would
> be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour of
> his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder slightly
> higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger right
> clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because it
> would have slightly farther to reach.
>
> His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to post
> mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis was
> triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which can
> (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> following an injury.
>
> The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is difficult
> to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would have
> little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was writing
> left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right, because
> otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to become
> right-handed.
>
> I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
> have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it was
> cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue eyes,
> extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even has
> his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
>
> Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We now
> have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8" he
> would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on the
> programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
> extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft, we
> now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and his
> enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than himself,
> must have been a dwarf.
>
>

From: Aidan Donnelly
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)

> I would have to agree with George, my next up brother had a bad time with
> just this - and remained a 'lefty' anyway.

Yes - he could only have been left-handed if his right arm had been injured,
which in turn would explain the onset of the scoliosis. His right
shoulder-blade does look extremely battered, with a chunk broken right off
at the joint - but that might just be damage which occurred at death or due
to decay in the grave. We will have to await a full post mortem.

If he *did* have an injury to his shoulder then More's account of the
"withered arm" speech might be true, but if it is then I'm sure he has
totally misunderstod what it means, and that Richard was saying "It is not
this old injury which ties my hand, but the machinations of these Woodville
bastards who thwart me at every turn" - only more concisely.

> we get the word 'sinister' from the Latin for Left and we all know it has
> bad connotations,

Yes, so if he *was* a southpaw it would contribute to his getting a dodgy
reputation with very little justification. I suspect his appearance in
armour was probably quite scary, too, especially if he wore the spiky,
close-fitting German Gothic armour shown in the Rous Roll. Because of the
amount of padding which has to go under it, armour for a man of normal build
has a bulky, space-suite-like appearance, but on a man as fine-boned and
skinny as Richard seems to have been, his armour, even with padding under
it, would have been man-shaped rather than space-suit-shaped. He must have
looked like a steel goblin.

A while ago, I read an interesting bio of Woodrow Wilson, written by a
medical doctor. He discussed Wilson's inability to learn correct reading
and writing until he got a typewriter; then linked this up to Wilson's
first stroke: Wilson's right side was paralyzed and he ended up writing
with his left hand for a while. The author showed Wilson's writing from
both right and left hand. Right hand is plain and legible. Left hand is
florid and beautiful. The author speculated that Wilson might have been
born lefthanded and forced into righthandedness, which might, he thought,
have encouraged the pressures which brought on a possible learning
disability and also the tendency toward strokes that Wilson suffered later
in life.

Interesting.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Aidan Donnelly
<aidan.donnelly@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I would have to agree with George, my next up brother had a bad time with
> just this - and remained a 'lefty' anyway.
>
> we get the word 'sinister' from the Latin for Left and we all know it has
> bad connotations, on the other hand Right is Dexter , from which
> we get dexterous, and much nicer meaning
>
> Aidan
>
> ________________________________
> From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
> To: ""
> >
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:25 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)
>
>
>
>
>
> I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of
> his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has
> been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of
> left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year
> old who is left handed!
> G
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...>
> wrote:
>
> > >> Carol responds:
> > >>
> > >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> > >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis
> that
> > >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> > >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of
> keeping
> > >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him
> only a
> > >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> > >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> > >> analyst) is not seeing.
> >
> > Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he
> had
> > it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
> > has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's
> walking
> > away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling
> bouts
> > of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> > afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I
> suppose
> > massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C.
> Also
> > the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> > armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those
> who
> > could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support
> as
> > if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all
> the
> > little muscles which support the spine would have been very
> well-developed,
> > which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
> >
> > I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> > contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two
> drawings
> > and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
> > which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
> > shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> > presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either
> the
> > same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> > either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the
> left
> > shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous
> Roll
> > show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows
> him
> > with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> > depressed and as such a lot lower.
> >
> > So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there
> would
> > be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour
> of
> > his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder
> slightly
> > higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger
> right
> > clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because
> it
> > would have slightly farther to reach.
> >
> > His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to
> post
> > mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis
> was
> > triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which
> can
> > (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> > following an injury.
> >
> > The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> > Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is
> difficult
> > to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> > because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> > letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would
> have
> > little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was
> writing
> > left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right,
> because
> > otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to
> become
> > right-handed.
> >
> > I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> > before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
> > have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it
> was
> > cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue
> eyes,
> > extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> > great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even
> has
> > his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
> >
> > Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We
> now
> > have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8"
> he
> > would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on
> the
> > programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
> > extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft,
> we
> > now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and
> his
> > enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than
> himself,
> > must have been a dwarf.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: Skeleton

> Interesting post. You must be our best-informed new member.

Ah, well, I've been *very* interested in him for 40 years - in fact when I
was in my 20s I used to do "the Wars of the Roses explained" as a kind of
party trick, and in my 30s I won an award in the Scottish International
Poetry Competition for a poem about Richard's body being thrown into the
Soar (which has now been shafted by history!). But I've usually been too
skint to afford the subscription for membership. The internet is a
wonderful thing - it means I can read historical documents for free.

> Regarding his coloring in the restoration, the eyes appear brown in most
> shots but a close-up photo shows them to be blue. If you like, I can try
> to link to that photo again,

Yes please. Unfortunately I don't have online links to the different
drawings of him - they're all on my PC, since years ago, so I don't recall
where I found them. Can I upload them somewhere?

> I agree that they got the hair wrong, but it's just a wig and can easily
> be replaced by a more accurate one (lighter colored--I'm not sure about
> auburn) and slightly wavy.

I remember it as looking auburn when I used to work in central London, and
used to go and look at the newly-cleaned NPG portrait quite a lot. Also
that the cleaned portrait shows an alarmingly pink-and-white complexion with
clearly visible blue veins, which always made me think that maybe Anne died
of TB and he was heading the same way. He's a most consumptive-looking
specimen, poor lad.

> Regarding his height, which surely wasn't four foot eight or it would have
> been remarked upon in his own time,

Yes, that seems like it must be an underestimate - although if I recall
correctly Charles I was 4'11", without benefit of scoliosos. At any rate
Richard was certainly on the short side (and remarked on as such, as I
recall) and von Poppelau was about 8" shorter, so however you cut it von
Poppelau (and his enormous lance) must have been well under 5ft.

[In case anybody doesn't know, Nicholas von Poppelau was a Silesian diplomat
and famous soldier who visited Richard soon after the death of Edward of
Middleham, and was extremely taken with him. He described Richard as a head
taller than himself. One of his quirks was that everywhere he went he
carried around with him an enormous and very heavy lance, which he
challenged all-comers to lift: if I remember correctly, Richard managed it,
although it sounds like it probably weighed more than he did.]

> I won't get into left-handedness [I snipped that part of your post] except
> that since the left side was regarded as "sinister," I expect that his
> enemies would have jumped on that trait as well if he had shown it.

Yes, true.

Catholic nuns in America forced kids to use their right hand at least through the 1930s. I entered Catholic school in the late 50s and was allowed to be a southpaw. Of course, they moaned over my handwriting and the supposed awkwardness, etc. - but no hand forced behind the back like my mother. Maire. (P.S.: here's hoping Richard was a "natural" southpaw.)

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine
>
> Had you gone to a kind, gentle and understanding Boys Boarding school you
> would have been "discouraged" from using your left hand!
>
> G
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of ellrosa1452
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:42 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)
>
>
>
>
>
> George,
> I agree with the first part of your message that it would have been
> discouraged especially as the left, sinistra, not sure I've spelt that
> right, was seen or taught as having associations with the devil. Therefore,
> it would seem to rule it out as a theory, in particular, if you follow that
> he was probably taught by monks. However, as much as I hate to admit my age,
> I do fall into your specified age bracket and I can say that no one ever put
> pressure on me to use my right hand. One in ten of the population are
> left-handed.
> Elaine
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , George Butterfield
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would suggest that as R3 had probably been taught by monks the chance of
> his using his left hand to write with would have been discouraged as it has
> been in any English school for the past 10000 years, no comprehension of
> left or right handed was either understood or tolerated ask any 40-50 year
> old who is left handed!
> > G
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:25 AM, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > >> Carol responds:
> > > >>
> > > >> It's just an idea that I'd like to see raised and analyzed as a
> > > >> possibility by the scientists simply because the degree of scoliosis
> that
> > > >> seems to be apparent in the skeleton in the grave (setting aside the
> > > >> possibly further distorted arrangement on the table) is so out of
> keeping
> > > >> with the contemporary descriptions of Richard (even Rous gives him
> only a
> > > >> raised shoulder) and his physical activities. There has to be an
> > > >> explanation that Jo Appleby (who is not exactly the ideal objective
> > > >> analyst) is not seeing.
> > >
> > > Well, one of my friends has lateral scoliosis and if you didn't know he
> had
> > > it, you wouldn't know he had it. He's perfectly upright, and although he
>
> > > has one shoulder higher than the other you can only see it as he's
> walking
> > > away from you. He does suffer from periodic and temporarily crippling
> bouts
> > > of his back going into muscular spasm, but if he was wealthy enough to
> > > afford regular massage he probably wouldn't have even that, and I
> suppose
> > > massage in at least some form must have been available in the 15th C.
> Also
> > > the Rous Roll shows Richard wearing a suit of skin-tight German Gothic
> > > armour, which is probably accurate - it was very fashionable for those
> who
> > > could afford it - and which must have provided as effective back-support
> as
> > > if wearing a corset. And he was trained to use weapons which means all
> the
> > > little muscles which support the spine would have been very
> well-developed,
> > > which would also minimise the effect of the scoliosis.
> > >
> > > I suspect they've got the shoulders wrong, though. We have six
> > > contemporary or near-contemporary images of him: two portraits, two
> drawings
> > > and two instances where he appears in the background of a group painting
>
> > > which focuses on someone else. The NPG portrait shows him with the right
>
> > > shoulder slightly higher. The group painting of Anthony Woodville
> > > presenting his new book at court shows Richard with his shoulders either
> the
> > > same or the right one minutely higher. The Salisbury Roll drawing shows
> > > either no appreciable diference or a microscopic bias in favour of the
> left
> > > shoulder being higher. The Jean de Wavrin group painting and the Rous
> Roll
> > > show him with the left shoulder slightly higher. The SoA portrait shows
> him
> > > with the left shoulder level and normal, and the right shoulder sharply
> > > depressed and as such a lot lower.
> > >
> > > So a) the difference clearly wasn't very noticeable, otherwise there
> would
> > > be more agreement on it, and b) the majority vote seems to be in favour
> of
> > > his left shoulder being higher. He seems to have the left shoulder
> slightly
> > > higher in the grave and the post mortem shows he had a slightly larger
> right
> > > clavicle - which I would have thought would be on the down side, because
> it
> > > would have slightly farther to reach.
> > >
> > > His right scapula has a very battered appearance. This may be due to
> post
> > > mortem decay but if it happened during life it may be that the scoliosis
> was
> > > triggered by a riding or training injury, since one of the things which
> can
> > > (it is said) trigger adolescent-onset scoliosis is muscle imbalance
> > > following an injury.
> > >
> > > The blodged and smeared appearance of his handwriting on the note about
> > > Buckingham slightly suggests that he was left-handed - since it is
> difficult
> > > to write from left to right, neatly, using wet ink and the left hand,
> > > because the side of the hand is always passing over the freshly-formed
> > > letters. If he was left-handed then any damage to the right side would
> have
> > > little or no impact on his skill as a soldier, and if indeed he was
> writing
> > > left-handed then that slightly suggests some damage on the right,
> because
> > > otherwise he would probably have been forced in childhood to learn to
> become
> > > right-handed.
> > >
> > > I've only just joined the forum so I don't know if this has been said
> > > before, but I was a little disappointed that the reconstruction looks to
>
> > > have based his colouring on a postcard of the NPG portrait *before* it
> was
> > > cleaned. Both portraits, cleaned, show that he should have grey-blue
> eyes,
> > > extremely fair skin and the same sort of dark aubern frizz that his
> > > great-to-the-nth niece Princess Anne had when she was his age. She even
> has
> > > his jaw-line - although without that socking-great chin.
> > >
> > > Btw, I don't know whether this has been said before, either, but ... We
> now
> > > have confirmation that Richard was susbtantially shorter than the 5'8"
> he
> > > would have been if he hadn't had a spine like a snake. It was said on
> the
> > > programme that he could have been as little as 4'8", although that's the
>
> > > extreme end of the possibilities. Even assuming that he was, say, 5ft,
> we
> > > now have confirmation that the famous soldier-diplomat von Poppelau (and
> his
> > > enormous lance), who described Richard as a whole head taller than
> himself,
> > > must have been a dwarf.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> Catholic nuns in America forced kids to use their right hand at least
> through the 1930s. I entered Catholic school in the late 50s and was
> allowed to be a southpaw. Of course, they moaned over my handwriting and
> the supposed awkwardness, etc. - but no hand forced behind the back like
> my mother. Maire. (P.S.: here's hoping Richard was a "natural" southpaw.)

He might or might not have been . The smudgy writing and the battered
appearance of his right shoulder make it a possibility (because if he
injured his shoulder his tutors would have to let him learn to write
left-handed), but as somebody said, if he had been left-handed it would
probably have been commented on and thrown back at him.

> I remember it as looking auburn when I used to work in central London, and
> used to go and look at the newly-cleaned NPG portrait quite a lot. Also
> that the cleaned portrait shows an alarmingly pink-and-white complexion with
> clearly visible blue veins, which always made me think that maybe Anne died
> of TB and he was heading the same way. He's a most consumptive-looking
> specimen, poor lad.
>

Well, I must say that I've had exactly the same complexion as the NPG portrait for 30 years, and it hasn't killed me yet - pink-and-white with an emphasis on the white, with those same clearly visible blue veins, especially on my hands and arms. I look like death warmed over even in the middle of July, but my haemoglobin count is exceptionally high. So you can never tell - some people are just born looking consumptive ;)

It's interesting to ponder, though, how many people in those times had latent TB, but never developed the active form of the disease, either because they were physically strong or because something else killed them first. If both Anne and their son died from TB (and obviously that's just an 'if') Richard might conceivably have had a latent infection as well...

(Oh, hello, everyone - I've been lurking for quite some time now, but haven't had anything of value to add to the discussions. Alas, I still don't, but decided to post anyway...)

Carol earlier:
> > Regarding his coloring in the restoration, the eyes appear brown in most shots but a close-up photo shows them to be blue. If you like, I can try to link to that photo again,

Claire responded:
> Yes please. Unfortunately I don't have online links to the different drawings of him - they're all on my PC, since years ago, so I don't recall where I found them. Can I upload them somewhere? [snip]

Carol again:

Here's the site with the photo that shows the blue eyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-iii-reconstruction/index.html

Scroll to the fifth photo in the slide show.

Not sure what you mean about the different drawings of him, but the National Portrait Gallery painting as shown on the cover of Kendall's biography, along with the Society of Antiquaries portrait before and after cleaning:

http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait

A better shot of the NPG portrait is here:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw05304/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=1

Here's the altered portrait of Richard III in the Royal Collection (which may help to account for Her Majesty's seeming indifference toward him):

http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/403436/richard-iii-1452-85

And a taste of what "portraiture" over the years descended into thanks to More and Shakespeare:

http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii

Click on any thumbnail for a larger version.

You might want to bookmark these for later reference!

Carol

We've had a fine stained glass at York (memorial), any chance of a nice oil based on the unbiased realisation of this poor, unfortunate and much maligned man's restored visage?

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/images/localpeople/ugc-images/275788/Article/images/18126593/4556905.jpg



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > Regarding his coloring in the restoration, the eyes appear brown in most shots but a close-up photo shows them to be blue. If you like, I can try to link to that photo again,
>
> Claire responded:
> > Yes please. Unfortunately I don't have online links to the different drawings of him - they're all on my PC, since years ago, so I don't recall where I found them. Can I upload them somewhere? [snip]
>
> Carol again:
>
> Here's the site with the photo that shows the blue eyes:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/europe/richard-iii-reconstruction/index.html
>
> Scroll to the fifth photo in the slide show.
>
> Not sure what you mean about the different drawings of him, but the National Portrait Gallery painting as shown on the cover of Kendall's biography, along with the Society of Antiquaries portrait before and after cleaning:
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
>
> A better shot of the NPG portrait is here:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portraitLarge/mw05304/King-Richard-III?LinkID=mp03765&role=sit&rNo=1
>
> Here's the altered portrait of Richard III in the Royal Collection (which may help to account for Her Majesty's seeming indifference toward him):
>
> http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/collection/403436/richard-iii-1452-85
>
> And a taste of what "portraiture" over the years descended into thanks to More and Shakespeare:
>
> http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp03765/king-richard-iii
>
> Click on any thumbnail for a larger version.
>
> You might want to bookmark these for later reference!
>
> Carol
>

Claire wrote:
> He might or might not have been . The smudgy writing and the battered appearance of his right shoulder make it a possibility (because if he injured his shoulder his tutors would have to let him learn to write left-handed), but as somebody said, if he had been left-handed it would probably have been commented on and thrown back at him.

Carol responds:
That was me, though several of us pointed out the "sinister" connotations of left-handedness. Morton and Rous as clerics and enemies of Richard who had actually seen him would certainly have made use of that information, which would have nicely supplemented Rous's description of Richard as having been born after two years in his mother's womb, with a possibly imaginary rising sign of Scorpio since his Libra sun sign lacked the diabolical connotations needed for Rous's depiction of him as the anti-Christ.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)

> Rous's description of Richard as having been born after two years in his
> mother's womb,

Which probably means Cis miscarried a couple of times before she had him, so
that she seemed to have been continuosly pregnant without issue for two
years. The reference to him being born with hair to his shouder is probably
a Chinese Whisper, because hair *on* the shoulders is a sign that a baby is
two or three weeks early and that would tie in with him seemingly not being
really expected to live (when he was a baby somebody reported that "Richard
liveth yet", as if it was surprising).

Is the Rous of the libellous description the same Rous of the Rous Roll,
which includes a drawing of Richard so soppy and Disneyfied that it makes
him look about five?

I think I read she had eleven children and six??? or seven lived. Edward, Edmund, George, Richard, Margaret, another sister. My mind is a sieve tonight.

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:12 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: Skeleton ( r3 left handed)

> Rous's description of Richard as having been born after two years in his
> mother's womb,

Which probably means Cis miscarried a couple of times before she had him, so
that she seemed to have been continuosly pregnant without issue for two
years. The reference to him being born with hair to his shouder is probably
a Chinese Whisper, because hair *on* the shoulders is a sign that a baby is
two or three weeks early and that would tie in with him seemingly not being
really expected to live (when he was a baby somebody reported that "Richard
liveth yet", as if it was surprising).

Is the Rous of the libellous description the same Rous of the Rous Roll,
which includes a drawing of Richard so soppy and Disneyfied that it makes
him look about five?

I'm trying to think of another case in which someone famous was demonized for being left-handed, and I can't really come up with anything. Men nobody likes are usually accused of some form of sexual perversion, however that's defined. Powerful women are usually accused of having an unpleasant voice (it's how you can tell that the character assassination engine is in top gear). I'm trying to think of a specific instance in which someone was criticized as a southpaw... not even in the witch trials (stay smart, human race!). Can't think of one, but there must be a couple, wouldn't you think? Don't we all know that anecdotal legendy thing about the nuns making lefties learn to write right?

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > He might or might not have been . The smudgy writing and the battered appearance of his right shoulder make it a possibility (because if he injured his shoulder his tutors would have to let him learn to write left-handed), but as somebody said, if he had been left-handed it would probably have been commented on and thrown back at him.
>
> Carol responds:
> That was me, though several of us pointed out the "sinister" connotations of left-handedness. Morton and Rous as clerics and enemies of Richard who had actually seen him would certainly have made use of that information, which would have nicely supplemented Rous's description of Richard as having been born after two years in his mother's womb, with a possibly imaginary rising sign of Scorpio since his Libra sun sign lacked the diabolical connotations needed for Rous's depiction of him as the anti-Christ.
>
> Carol
>

"mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
> I'm trying to think of another case in which someone famous was demonized for being left-handed, and I can't really come up with anything. [snip]

Carol responds:

Not famous, really, but I'll never forget the first few words of a Latin translation I did in high school" "Mucius Scaevola, a man left-handed. . . ." If I recall correctly, he shook hands with his right hand, supposedly proving that he was unarmed, then stabbed the man he was shaking hands with using a dagger in his left hand. Dangerous and sneaky, these sinister-handed men!

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Which probably means Cis miscarried a couple of times before she had him, so that she seemed to have been continuosly pregnant without issue for two years. The reference to him being born with hair to his shouder is probably a Chinese Whisper, because hair *on* the shoulders is a sign that a baby is two or three weeks early and that would tie in with him seemingly not being really expected to live (when he was a baby somebody reported that "Richard liveth yet", as if it was surprising).
>
> Is the Rous of the libellous description the same Rous of the Rous Roll, which includes a drawing of Richard so soppy and Disneyfied that it makes him look about five?

Carol responds:

My own theory on the born with teeth and hair (a topic we've actually debated here and I don't want to get back into) is that a baby who had (miraculously or diabolically) been in the womb for two years would be the same size and have the same number of teeth and amount of hair as a fifteen-month-old baby--IOW, he was simply describing his monstrous baby as it would have appeared had it been born that way. Rous, after all, would not have seen Richard as a baby.

As for "Richard Liveth Yet," there's a rather well-known article in either the Ricardian or Ricardian Register showing that the line is only filler--the same wording is used later in the poem for Richard's father--and can't be taken as an indication that he was a sickly child. Of course, his mother may have felt, after losing four or five babies, including one between him and George, that his survival was miraculous. She would lose one more baby after him. I somehow think that if Cecily Neville had a soft spot, it might have been for her youngest son. But, of course, we'll never know.

Regarding Rous, he wrote two versions of the Rous Roll, one in English and one in Latin. The Latin one shows erasures and alterations (IIRC, he actually cut holes in it). That was the one that Henry saw. The English version, fortunately, escaped his violations and reads as it did while Richard was alive.

Carol