Burial

Hi. I've been interested in Richard since I was twelve, which is to say nearly forty years, and I was intermittently a member of the Society, but I couldn't afford to keep up with the subscription fee. I joined the forum partly because I wanted to comment on Richard's burial.

He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.

If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.

It's not the only explanation - it could be that Henry's men were told to bury him honourably but resented the task and did a shoddy job, or just wanted to bury him as fast as possible because a nearly-three-days-dead body in August wouldn't be a very nice prospect. But burial respectfully but in haste by the friars is at least a strong possibility.

He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.

Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.

So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.

My favourite moment in the Ch 4 documentary was when they carried his bones out of the grave draped in his battle flag, laid the box down reverently in the back of the van, and then Philippa gave him a gentle, affectionate, absent-minded little pat, as if he was a Labrador.

I don't know why you should think it strange that Roman 'Oddments' would not turn up:
Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England, with a history going back at least 2,000 years. The first recorded name of the city is the Roman label auvoruRatae Corieltm. (The name of the this tribe was formerly thought to be "Coritani", so "Ratae Coritanorum" is used in older references to it.)
Before being settled by Romans it was the capital of the Celtic Corieltauvi tribe ruling over roughly the same territory as what is now known as the East Midlands.

Ratae Corieltauvorum was founded around AD 50 as a military settlement along the Fosse Way, a Roman road between Exeter and Lincoln. After the military departure, Ratae Corieltauvorum grew into an important trading centre and one of the largest towns in Roman Britain. The remains of the baths of Roman Leicester can be seen at the Jewry Wall and other Roman artefacts are displayed in the Jewry Wall Museum adjacent to the site.

Regard

Aidan




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 7:44 PM
Subject: Burial


 
Hi. I've been interested in Richard since I was twelve, which is to say nearly forty years, and I was intermittently a member of the Society, but I couldn't afford to keep up with the subscription fee. I joined the forum partly because I wanted to comment on Richard's burial.

He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.

If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.

It's not the only explanation - it could be that Henry's men were told to bury him honourably but resented the task and did a shoddy job, or just wanted to bury him as fast as possible because a nearly-three-days-dead body in August wouldn't be a very nice prospect. But burial respectfully but in haste by the friars is at least a strong possibility.

He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.

Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.

So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.

My favourite moment in the Ch 4 documentary was when they carried his bones out of the grave draped in his battle flag, laid the box down reverently in the back of the van, and then Philippa gave him a gentle, affectionate, absent-minded little pat, as if he was a Labrador.

I meant would turn up of course, apologies




________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 7:47 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


I don't know why you should think it strange that Roman 'Oddments' would not turn up:
Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England, with a history going back at least 2,000 years. The first recorded name of the city is the Roman label auvoruRatae Corieltm. (The name of the this tribe was formerly thought to be "Coritani", so "Ratae Coritanorum" is used in older references to it.)
Before being settled by Romans it was the capital of the Celtic Corieltauvi tribe ruling over roughly the same territory as what is now known as the East Midlands.

Ratae Corieltauvorum was founded around AD 50 as a military settlement along the Fosse Way, a Roman
road between Exeter and Lincoln. After the military departure, Ratae Corieltauvorum grew into an important trading centre and one of the largest towns in Roman Britain. The remains of the baths of Roman Leicester can be seen at the Jewry Wall and other Roman artefacts are displayed in the Jewry Wall Museum adjacent to the site.

Regard

Aidan




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 7:44 PM
Subject: Burial


 
Hi. I've been interested in Richard since I was twelve, which is to say nearly forty years, and I was intermittently a member of the Society, but I couldn't afford to keep up with the subscription fee. I joined the forum partly because I wanted to comment on Richard's burial.

He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.

If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.

It's not the only explanation - it could be that Henry's men were told to bury him honourably but resented the task and did a shoddy job, or just wanted to bury him as fast as possible because a nearly-three-days-dead body in August wouldn't be a very nice prospect. But burial respectfully but in haste by the friars is at least a strong possibility.

He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.

Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.

So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.

My favourite moment in the Ch 4 documentary was when they carried his bones out of the grave draped in his battle flag, laid the box down reverently in the back of the van, and then Philippa gave him a gentle, affectionate, absent-minded little pat, as if he was a Labrador.

> I don't know why you should think it strange that Roman 'Oddments' would
> not turn up:
Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England,

Sure, but I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't
anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman
remains in the area to confirm that. Also the nail was lying loose and
mixed up in his bones, not buried in the ground under him, so for it to have
got there by chance it would have to have been in the thin layer of earth
over him and have happened to be placed on his thorax exactly where you'd
expect a relic to be, which is not impossible but would be a big
coincidence.

Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.

Pamela Bain | President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



> I don't know why you should think it strange that Roman 'Oddments' would
> not turn up:
Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England,

Sure, but I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't
anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman
remains in the area to confirm that. Also the nail was lying loose and
mixed up in his bones, not buried in the ground under him, so for it to have
got there by chance it would have to have been in the thin layer of earth
over him and have happened to be placed on his thorax exactly where you'd
expect a relic to be, which is not impossible but would be a big
coincidence.

> Sure, but I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't
anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman
remains in the area to confirm that.

I managed to find one and I see my friend was wrong - the car park seems to
be just inside where they now think the Roman wall was. So it *could* have
got there by chance, but there's still the position which suggests it was
sitting right in the middle of his chest and fell through his ribs.

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial


> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



From: Pamela Bain
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

Hi Claire
                I was just comparing a medieval map and a Roman map and found the same thing.
Of course being inside or outside the wall really neither confirms nor refutes the possibility you raise.

However it was found underneath the spine, which initially lead to the thought that it may have been
the head of an arrow that would have entered his back, which tends to rule out it being hung around
his neck and falling through as the body tissue decayed.

Interesting supposition though

Regards

Aidan




________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


 
> Sure, but I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't
anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman
remains in the area to confirm that.

I managed to find one and I see my friend was wrong - the car park seems to
be just inside where they now think the Roman wall was. So it *could* have
got there by chance, but there's still the position which suggests it was
sitting right in the middle of his chest and fell through his ribs.

Hi Pamela
                   It is not uncommon to find artefacts that seem out of place, I recall several Roman artefacts found in the saxon layer on one of the digs
we did in London. The archaeologists later determined that there was a saxon pit nearby and they were likely spoil from that pit.

But there was no exhaustive excavation 'through the ages' at Greyfriars, as was done in London, so no way to tell, it certainly was a surprise though :)

Regards

Aidan




________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Burial


 
Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

A very interesting post Claire....

And yes...I too loved the moment that Philippa and John put the box with Richard's remains in the van and Philippa patted it....yes as you would your pet labrador...or the way you pat someone and say "It will be alright'....

Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> Hi. I've been interested in Richard since I was twelve, which is to say nearly forty years, and I was intermittently a member of the Society, but I couldn't afford to keep up with the subscription fee. I joined the forum partly because I wanted to comment on Richard's burial.
>
> He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.
>
> If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.
>
> It's not the only explanation - it could be that Henry's men were told to bury him honourably but resented the task and did a shoddy job, or just wanted to bury him as fast as possible because a nearly-three-days-dead body in August wouldn't be a very nice prospect. But burial respectfully but in haste by the friars is at least a strong possibility.
>
> He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.
>
> Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.
>
> So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.
>
> My favourite moment in the Ch 4 documentary was when they carried his bones out of the grave draped in his battle flag, laid the box down reverently in the back of the van, and then Philippa gave him a gentle, affectionate, absent-minded little pat, as if he was a Labrador.
>
>
>

And Leicester is near to both the Watling Street and the Fosse Way. We had a Roman villa (complete with skeleton) excavated in a field at the side of the Watling about 4 miles from where I live.  H.



________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:13
Subject: Re: Burial

 

Hi Pamela
                   It is not uncommon to find artefacts that seem out of place, I recall several Roman artefacts found in the saxon layer on one of the digs
we did in London. The archaeologists later determined that there was a saxon pit nearby and they were likely spoil from that pit.

But there was no exhaustive excavation 'through the ages' at Greyfriars, as was done in London, so no way to tell, it certainly was a surprise though :)

Regards

Aidan

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Burial


 
Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

My father was cremated. I kind much the same kind of thing with his remains..... he was there, but not, but his spirit was all around me. As several have mentioned, Phillippa does seem to have some sort of cosmic connection, love and respect.

Pamela Bain | President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



A very interesting post Claire....

And yes...I too loved the moment that Philippa and John put the box with Richard's remains in the van and Philippa patted it....yes as you would your pet labrador...or the way you pat someone and say "It will be alright'....

Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> Hi. I've been interested in Richard since I was twelve, which is to say nearly forty years, and I was intermittently a member of the Society, but I couldn't afford to keep up with the subscription fee. I joined the forum partly because I wanted to comment on Richard's burial.
>
> He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.
>
> If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.
>
> It's not the only explanation - it could be that Henry's men were told to bury him honourably but resented the task and did a shoddy job, or just wanted to bury him as fast as possible because a nearly-three-days-dead body in August wouldn't be a very nice prospect. But burial respectfully but in haste by the friars is at least a strong possibility.
>
> He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.
>
> Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.
>
> So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.
>
> My favourite moment in the Ch 4 documentary was when they carried his bones out of the grave draped in his battle flag, laid the box down reverently in the back of the van, and then Philippa gave him a gentle, affectionate, absent-minded little pat, as if he was a Labrador.
>
>
>

Leicester was originally a Roman Military fort - or Castrum - on the Fosseway, built in 50AD - the Fosseway at that time was the Frontier road of Roman subjgated Britain and ran from Exeter to Lincoln.

Any town which has some variant of Castrum , such as Leicester, Chester, Gloucester - or Cardiff, Caerphilly, Caerleon in Wales is an indication they started out as a Roman
military position.

Regards

Aidan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


 
And Leicester is near to both the Watling Street and the Fosse Way. We had a Roman villa (complete with skeleton) excavated in a field at the side of the Watling about 4 miles from where I live.  H.

________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:13
Subject: Re: Burial

 

Hi Pamela
                   It is not uncommon to find artefacts that seem out of place, I recall several Roman artefacts found in the saxon layer on one of the digs
we did in London. The archaeologists later determined that there was a saxon pit nearby and they were likely spoil from that pit.

But there was no exhaustive excavation 'through the ages' at Greyfriars, as was done in London, so no way to tell, it certainly was a surprise though :)

Regards

Aidan

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

 
Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh now that is interesting…. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect “well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail”. No archeologist, me…..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> Subject: RE: Burial
>
> > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > “thought” it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
>
> Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> underground was something similar.
>
>
>
>
>

Indeed. And the Fosse passes close to Atherstone and the site of the battle but I'm NOT going there.



________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly <aidan.donnelly@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:31
Subject: Re: Burial

 

Leicester was originally a Roman Military fort - or Castrum - on the Fosseway, built in 50AD - the Fosseway at that time was the Frontier road of Roman subjgated Britain and ran from Exeter to Lincoln.

Any town which has some variant of Castrum , such as Leicester, Chester, Gloucester - or Cardiff, Caerphilly, Caerleon in Wales is an indication they started out as a Roman
military position.

Regards

Aidan

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


 
And Leicester is near to both the Watling Street and the Fosse Way. We had a Roman villa (complete with skeleton) excavated in a field at the side of the Watling about 4 miles from where I live.  H.

________________________________
From: Aidan Donnelly aidan.donnelly@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 14:13
Subject: Re: Burial

 

Hi Pamela
                   It is not uncommon to find artefacts that seem out of place, I recall several Roman artefacts found in the saxon layer on one of the digs
we did in London. The archaeologists later determined that there was a saxon pit nearby and they were likely spoil from that pit.

But there was no exhaustive excavation 'through the ages' at Greyfriars, as was done in London, so no way to tell, it certainly was a surprise though :)

Regards

Aidan

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain pbain@...>
To: ">
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 9:54 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

 
Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial

From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
Subject: RE: Burial

> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
it aside as debris, because it could be significant.

Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
underground was something similar.

From: Aidan Donnelly
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> However it was found underneath the spine, which initially lead to the
> thought that it may have been
the head of an arrow that would have entered his back, which tends to rule
out it being hung around
his neck and falling through as the body tissue decayed.

Now, although I have an HDTV copy of the programme I don't have anything
high-powered enough to play it on, so I can't examine it in the detail I'd
like. But based on what I could see on my measly little 14" CRT telly I'm
90% sure the metal was sitting on top of the soil and actually interleaved
with his vertebrae, suggesting it might have fallen down on them from above
and rolled into the space between two bones. I'm 99% sure it was sitting
higher up than the lowest extent of the dorsal processes on the vertebrae.

If it was in the ground underneath him then it would have had to be right at
the surface layer of the grave, and so placed that it just happened to line
up with his vertrabrae, and then his bones would have to have sunk into the
ground slightly and gone past it by an inch or so.

Before jumping to conclusions about the roman nail, do we know what the prior history of the site of Greyfriars was. The friary could have used rubble on its foundations just to level out the choir and surrounding area and was just dumped prior to completion of the friary. Later during its life as a friary, graves were dug in this disturbed soil. I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: RE: Burial
> >
> > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> >
> > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > underground was something similar.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> And yes...I too loved the moment that Philippa and John put the box with
> Richard's remains in the van and Philippa patted it....yes as you would
> your pet labrador...or the way you pat someone and say "It will be
> alright'....

An American friend likened it to the way a mother pats a child who is going
off to school for the first time, yes. And I'm sure he'd be very touched
and encouraged by the affection, even if he might be a bit sniffy about
being patted like a pet.

Great points George, and they did stress, that a great deal of the tiling had been removed, and there was a rubble pit. It just bothers me, that they didn't seem to take the time and care needed for a dig of this importance. However, what we saw was 40+ minutes, and it took months of work. So we may be throwing shoes at the archeologists for naught. Does anyone know if there will be a book or books on the excavation and exhumation? I am ignorant of that aspect of the find&&


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:08 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



Before jumping to conclusions about the roman nail, do we know what the prior history of the site of Greyfriars was. The friary could have used rubble on its foundations just to level out the choir and surrounding area and was just dumped prior to completion of the friary. Later during its life as a friary, graves were dug in this disturbed soil. I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:

> I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> >
> > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: RE: Burial
> >
> > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> >
> > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > underground was something similar.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
George

Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.

*If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
convinced of.

To make a hole you dig up earth, you then cover up with the earth what you have placed in the hole... He also may have been wearing a stone necklace as lots of stones have been found near his head!!!
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:17 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Aidan Donnelly
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
> > However it was found underneath the spine, which initially lead to the
> > thought that it may have been
> the head of an arrow that would have entered his back, which tends to rule
> out it being hung around
> his neck and falling through as the body tissue decayed.
>
> Now, although I have an HDTV copy of the programme I don't have anything
> high-powered enough to play it on, so I can't examine it in the detail I'd
> like. But based on what I could see on my measly little 14" CRT telly I'm
> 90% sure the metal was sitting on top of the soil and actually interleaved
> with his vertebrae, suggesting it might have fallen down on them from above
> and rolled into the space between two bones. I'm 99% sure it was sitting
> higher up than the lowest extent of the dorsal processes on the vertebrae.
>
> If it was in the ground underneath him then it would have had to be right at
> the surface layer of the grave, and so placed that it just happened to line
> up with his vertrabrae, and then his bones would have to have sunk into the
> ground slightly and gone past it by an inch or so.
>
>

Yes, that's another reason the thought of displaying Richard's bones made me shudder, especially when you consider how religious he was. The Church, in those days, found many ways to make money.
Elaine

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh now that is interesting…. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect “well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail”. No archeologist, me…..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > Subject: RE: Burial
> >
> > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > “thought” it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> >
> > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > underground was something similar.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>
> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
> convinced of.
>

I have never heard of a dig in the UK that did not have supporting detailed documentation of the dig as well as supporting evidence etc.
I was involved with the dig at Sandal Castle an have the full archeological reports in book form, they are very detailed ( I was hoping to rebuild here in Savannah on winning the lottery)
George


Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Great points George, and they did stress, that a great deal of the tiling had been removed, and there was a rubble pit. It just bothers me, that they didn't seem to take the time and care needed for a dig of this importance. However, what we saw was 40+ minutes, and it took months of work. So we may be throwing shoes at the archeologists for naught. Does anyone know if there will be a book or books on the excavation and exhumation? I am ignorant of that aspect of the find&&
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:08 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
> Before jumping to conclusions about the roman nail, do we know what the prior history of the site of Greyfriars was. The friary could have used rubble on its foundations just to level out the choir and surrounding area and was just dumped prior to completion of the friary. Later during its life as a friary, graves were dug in this disturbed soil. I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh now that is interesting&. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail. No archeologist, me&..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> > >
> > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Burial
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Burial
> > >
> > > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > > thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> > >
> > > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > > underground was something similar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So it was on top ?
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>
> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
> convinced of.
>
>

I am hoping and praying that there will be a book...although it would be nice if it covered from A to B...that is the dig right up to the re-burial...Eileen

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> I have never heard of a dig in the UK that did not have supporting detailed documentation of the dig as well as supporting evidence etc.
> I was involved with the dig at Sandal Castle an have the full archeological reports in book form, they are very detailed ( I was hoping to rebuild here in Savannah on winning the lottery)
> George
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > Great points George, and they did stress, that a great deal of the tiling had been removed, and there was a rubble pit. It just bothers me, that “they” didn’t seem to take the time and care needed for a dig of this importance. However, what we saw was 40+ minutes, and it took months of work. So we may be throwing shoes at the archeologists for naught. Does anyone know if there will be a book or books on the excavation and exhumation? I am ignorant of that aspect of the find……
> >
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:08 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >
> > Before jumping to conclusions about the roman nail, do we know what the prior history of the site of Greyfriars was. The friary could have used rubble on its foundations just to level out the choir and surrounding area and was just dumped prior to completion of the friary. Later during its life as a friary, graves were dug in this disturbed soil. I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oh now that is interesting…. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect “well, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nail”. No archeologist, me…..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> > > >
> > > > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Re: Burial
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: Burial
> > > >
> > > > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > > > “thought” it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > > > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > > > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > > > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > > > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > > > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > > > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > > > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> > > >
> > > > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > > > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > > > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > > > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > > > underground was something similar.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen

Yeah, but the X-Ray looks exactly like an arrowhead from which the little
barbs have almost rusted away!

Again that's a 'reach' as the nail may have been just under the dirt and the natural process of decay
could have brought bones and nail together.






________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


 
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
George

Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.

*If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
convinced of.

Couldn't it just have been that it was all done in a great hurry and the friars hardly had time to sieve the earth? After all, it's not normal practice even now, is it? H


________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:35
Subject: Re: Burial

 

So it was on top ?
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>
> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
> convinced of.
>
>

From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> So it was on top ?

Under him, but actually sticking up between two of his vertebrae, as far as
I could make out. So it looked as if it could either have been on the
ground under him and sticking up in such a way that his bones settled around
it, or actually *in* his back (if it was an arrowhead), or on top of him and
fell down into his spine after the cartilege discs had rotted away, so that
it rolled into the notch where the cartilege had been.

Right!....Oh dear....I had hoped that the person who studied the 'nail'...he must have been an archaeologist....would have known what he was talking about..its hardly rocket science is it...You know what...I am beginning to get rather disillusioned with the dig. Thank God they have not made a mistake with the identification but from what Im reading on here it looks more likely every day that things were done in a rushed manner...My first disillusion was hearing Dr Ooooops use the word h.........k! Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
>
> Yeah, but the X-Ray looks exactly like an arrowhead from which the little
> barbs have almost rusted away!
>

Well we don't know but I would hope that the object was subjected to tests which proved conclusively that it is composed of iron found in many Roman nails and not that which would have been used in a 15th century arrowhead.


I hope ... otherwise we have more troubles, as I agree the x-ray did look quite similar to a barbed arrow, with the barbs rusted almost away.

I got disillusioned with the dig around the time Mattock-Jo got involved...

Aidan



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


 
Right!....Oh dear....I had hoped that the person who studied the 'nail'...he must have been an archaeologist....would have known what he was talking about..its hardly rocket science is it...You know what...I am beginning to get rather disillusioned with the dig. Thank God they have not made a mistake with the identification but from what Im reading on here it looks more likely every day that things were done in a rushed manner...My first disillusion was hearing Dr Ooooops use the word h.........k! Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
>
> Yeah, but the X-Ray looks exactly like an arrowhead from which the little
> barbs have almost rusted away!
>

Great idea.....but I plan on winning and funding a Richard III field trip to the Midlands. : )

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:34 AM, "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1@...>> wrote:



I have never heard of a dig in the UK that did not have supporting detailed documentation of the dig as well as supporting evidence etc.
I was involved with the dig at Sandal Castle an have the full archeological reports in book form, they are very detailed ( I was hoping to rebuild here in Savannah on winning the lottery)
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:14 AM, Pamela Bain pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>> wrote:

> Great points George, and they did stress, that a great deal of the tiling had been removed, and there was a rubble pit. It just bothers me, that ýtheyý didnýt seem to take the time and care needed for a dig of this importance. However, what we saw was 40+ minutes, and it took months of work. So we may be throwing shoes at the archeologists for naught. Does anyone know if there will be a book or books on the excavation and exhumation? I am ignorant of that aspect of the findýý
>
>
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of George Butterfield
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:08 AM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
> Before jumping to conclusions about the roman nail, do we know what the prior history of the site of Greyfriars was. The friary could have used rubble on its foundations just to level out the choir and surrounding area and was just dumped prior to completion of the friary. Later during its life as a friary, graves were dug in this disturbed soil. I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:35 AM, "EileenB" cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
> > I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh now that is interestingý. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect ýwell, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nailý. No archeologist, meý..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
> > >
> > > From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: Re: Burial
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Burial
> > >
> > > > Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
> > > > ýthoughtý it was lodged in the vertebrae.
> > > I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
> > > they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
> > > again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
> > > mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
> > > it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
> > > chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
> > > it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
> > >
> > > Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
> > > somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
> > > then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
> > > they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
> > > underground was something similar.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The archeologists stated that at first and from the angle they looked at, it had many similarities to a barbed arrow head current to that period, however they went on to say that further examination from a different angle under x-ray revealed the roman nail etc. they even showed separate photographs of the findings and why they came to this conclusion. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks the odds are that it's a duck!

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Aidan Donnelly
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial







Well we don't know but I would hope that the object was subjected to tests which proved conclusively that it is composed of iron found in many Roman nails and not that which would have been used in a 15th century arrowhead.

I hope ... otherwise we have more troubles, as I agree the x-ray did look quite similar to a barbed arrow, with the barbs rusted almost away.

I got disillusioned with the dig around the time Mattock-Jo got involved...

Aidan

________________________________
From: EileenB cherryripe.eileenb@... <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: Burial



Right!....Oh dear....I had hoped that the person who studied the 'nail'...he must have been an archaeologist....would have known what he was talking about..its hardly rocket science is it...You know what...I am beginning to get rather disillusioned with the dig. Thank God they have not made a mistake with the identification but from what Im reading on here it looks more likely every day that things were done in a rushed manner...My first disillusion was hearing Dr Ooooops use the word h.........k! Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
>
> Yeah, but the X-Ray looks exactly like an arrowhead from which the little
> barbs have almost rusted away!
>

Yes I understand where it was found, however if you place dirt containing a nail on top of the body cover it up and leave it for >500 years it is going to fall into the cavity remaining. As H8 destroyed this friary we can assume that the area laid waste until it was made into a garden then later a car park no settlement was seen as it did not occur within sight, this does not mean it did not happen as this is the normal result of any burial. Take a walk round any old grave yard in England and the ground is uneven this is not due to laziness but the coffin and corpse decomposing leaving a void ( it is not as common in the USA as you have mainly concrete tombs etc.)

George

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial





From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> So it was on top ?

Under him, but actually sticking up between two of his vertebrae, as far as
I could make out. So it looked as if it could either have been on the
ground under him and sticking up in such a way that his bones settled around
it, or actually *in* his back (if it was an arrowhead), or on top of him and
fell down into his spine after the cartilege discs had rotted away, so that
it rolled into the notch where the cartilege had been.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Right!....Oh dear....I had hoped that the person who studied the
> 'nail'...he must have been an archaeologist....would have known what he
> was talking about..its hardly rocket science is it...

To be fair, they may have done other forms of analysis which proved it was a
Roman nail, and which weren't shown - but what was actually shown was
unconvincing. They showed the X-ray of the mystery metal next to some
X-rays of arrowheads which it looked exactly like, allowing for being a bit
bent (like you would expect if it had gone through armour), and said oh
look, it's not an arrowhead, without any explanation as to why they'd
decided it wasn't.

> My first disillusion was hearing Dr Ooooops use the word h.........k!
> Eileen

Yeah. And that's obviously a Chinese Whispers thing, a tale which grew in
the telling - "Crookback" was clearly true, "Crouchback" clearly wasn't.

Claire M Jordan wrote:

>[snip]
> He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.
>
> If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.

[snip]

> He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.
>
> Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.
>
> So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.

Carol responds:

Hi, again, Claire. Lovely, thoughtful post. I'm not sure whether the halter around his neck has any factual basis or is just legend, but I love your idea that the "Roman nail" could be a relic of the True Cross provided by the friars, who certainly chose the burial place, whether they dug the grave or not. The idea of rigor mortis leaving him in a curved position is interesting (and would, if proven, invalidate my idea that he was bent backwards over the horse's back). It would certainly account for the short grave and odd position.

I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side, which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they say nothing about tied hands:

http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)

Note to George:

Here's another link on University of Leicester's search for Richard that may be of interest to your friend:

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/

Carol

Claire M Jordan wrote:

>[snip]
> He has been buried in a place of honour and in a location which presumably required the burial party to prise up flagstones, yet he also seems to have been buried in haste, since his position suggests that the grave is a little too short.
>
> If he had been buried by Henry's men, I would have thought that if they had just been told to bury him at Greyfriers they would have put him in the graveyard, avoiding the tedious business of lifting the flagstones. If on the other hand they had specifically been told to bury him honourably in the choir, I would have expected them to make a more thorough job of it. The combination of the technically difficult and honourable burial-site with the apparent haste suggests to me that he was buried by somebody - presumably the friars - who wanted to bury him with respect but was afraid that if they didn't get him into the ground fast somebody might come and take him away.

[snip]

> He has been buried with his wrists together as if tied, yet in this respectful position in the choir. It seems unlikely that anyone who was going to the trouble of burying him in a position of honour *wouldn't* cut the ropes off, so this suggests that he went into rigor mortis while slung over a horse and he was buried whilst still in rigor, which establishes a loose time-limit for how long it took to get to Leicester and when he was buried. Being buried in rigor instead of laid out to soften also suggests haste, although it also means that the short grave might be due to the fact that they were burying a body which had set in a curled-forward position.
>
> Finally, if that really *is* a Roman nail which was mixed up with his ribcage, it's an anomaly because Leicester isn't a place where you'd expect to find a lot of Roman oddments just turning up in the soil. It strongly suggests to me that it was somebody's supposed Nail of the True Cross. It's probably not Richard's own because a) somebody would probably have nicked it when he was stripped and b) he was wealthy, so any relic he wore would probably have been in an ornate metal reliquary of which some trace would survive. So if it's a relic it probably belonged to one of the friars and was in a leather or cloth pouch.
>
> So we have an at least strongly possible scenario in which the friars appropriated his still-rigid body and buried him with honour and respect but in great haste, and somebody took the halter off his neck and placed a relic on a cord there instead, to look after him in the grave. Which is kind-of nice, if true, because it would mean that he was at least buried by somebody who was handling him kindly and taking a risk to do so.

Carol responds:

Hi, again, Claire. Lovely, thoughtful post. I'm not sure whether the halter around his neck has any factual basis or is just legend, but I love your idea that the "Roman nail" could be a relic of the True Cross provided by the friars, who certainly chose the burial place, whether they dug the grave or not. The idea of rigor mortis leaving him in a curved position is interesting (and would, if proven, invalidate my idea that he was bent backwards over the horse's back). It would certainly account for the short grave and odd position.

I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side, which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they say nothing about tied hands:

http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)

Note to George:

Here's another link on University of Leicester's search for Richard that may be of interest to your friend:

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/

Carol

Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact. 

Carole


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 13:07
Subject: RE: Burial


 
Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they thought it was lodged in the vertebrae.

Pamela Bain | President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
www.bmbi.com

7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



> I don't know why you should think it strange that Roman 'Oddments' would
> not turn up:
Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England,

Sure, but I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't
anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman
remains in the area to confirm that. Also the nail was lying loose and
mixed up in his bones, not buried in the ground under him, so for it to have
got there by chance it would have to have been in the thin layer of earth
over him and have happened to be placed on his thorax exactly where you'd
expect a relic to be, which is not impossible but would be a big
coincidence.

From: carole hughes
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as
> disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing
> him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling
> Philippa something that would convey the fact.

And she probably feels bad enough already about being so clumsy....

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] I was told by somebody from the area that the Roman part wasn't anywhere near the carpark, although I'd have to get hold of a map of Roman remains in the area to confirm that. Also the nail was lying loose and mixed up in his bones, not buried in the ground under him, so for it to have got there by chance it would have to have been in the thin layer of earth over him and have happened to be placed on his thorax exactly where you'd expect a relic to be, which is not impossible but would be a big coincidence.

Carol responds:

The ULAS website has all sorts of material and maps on Roman Leicester, Saxon Leicester, medieval Leicester, etc. that may be helpful. They have digs all over the place (except that it would never have occurred to them on their own to dig under this particular car park, or parking lot, as we would say in the U.S.). You might find the map you're looking for.

As for the nail as religious relic idea, which I think is inspired, maybe someone on this forum who's planning to attend the March 2 conference can raise that question? I'll be at home in Tucson, unfortunately.

Carol

Aidan Donnelly wrote:

> It is not uncommon to find artefacts that seem out of place, I recall several Roman artefacts found in the saxon layer on one of the digs we did in London. The archaeologists later determined that there was a saxon pit nearby and they were likely spoil from that pit. [snip]

Carol responds:

Which raises interesting possibilities for the bones in the urn, which were mixed in with animal bones (pig and chicken< IIRC), which suggests that they had perhaps been thrown on a Saxon trash heap. Does anyone know anything about Saxon burial prectices among the lower classes (as opposed royalty)? The location suggests that they were pre-Norman.

Carol

Claire M Jordan wrote:

> An American friend likened it to the way a mother pats a child who is going off to school for the first time, yes. And I'm sure he'd be very touched and encouraged by the affection, even if he might be a bit sniffy about being patted like a pet.

Carol responds:

Or like a younger brother encouraged and comforted by an older sister? Richard may have received a few such gestures of affection from Margaret in the twelve years or so that they lived together.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> Which raises interesting possibilities for the bones in the urn, which
> were mixed in with animal bones (pig and chicken< IIRC), which suggests
> that they had perhaps been thrown on a Saxon trash heap. Does anyone know
> anything about Saxon burial prectices among the lower classes (as opposed
> royalty)? The location suggests that they were pre-Norman.

Roman, I suspect. Of the two abnormalities which the skeletons share with
Anne Mowbray, the slightly deformed thumb is probably a red herring.
Maddeningly, I can't find the quote now - it seems to have been deleted -
but a year or two ago I came across a post on one of the genaeology
websites, probably Rootschat, where an expert on Mowbray family history said
that the line through which the Mowbray Thumb descends is known, and (unless
somebody was having sex with their cousin's wife on the side) the two York
boys were not descended from that line and could not have inherited this
abnormality from the Mowbrays. The other odditty, the dental one, was very
rare in Mediaeval London, and if they are Mediaeval then it does make it
likely they were related to Anne Mowbray - but it was found in about a third
of the population of Roman London, so it's most likely meaning is that these
are Roman children.

Claire wrote:

> > [snip] *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not convinced of.
> >

Eileen responded:
> It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen

Carol adds:

I could have sworn that I saw images of the X-rayed nail/arrowhead online but can't find them. Can anyone post the relevant link?

I still think that the relic hypothesis is interesting and should not be dismissed out of hand. If people of Richard's era kept fragments of wood that they believed to be from the True Cross, I see no reason why a friar would not keep a nail that he believed to be from the same cross and place it with his dead king as a mark of pity and piety. Saying that it's plausible and worth exploring is, of course, far from assuming it to be true. I still hope that someone at the conference will raise the question.

BTW, for anyone interested, you can download U of Leicester's complete PowerPoint presentation from this page:

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/presentations-by-speakers-at-the-press-conference-monday-4-february-1/

(unfortunately, nothing on the nail, but George's friend may find it useful for the bones.

Carol

We keep getting at the poor old Leicester team - but Jo Appleby, despite her lack of tact, is a Cambridge trained archaeologist.

I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even a Roman nail. It doesn't help, in fact it makes it worse. I'm sure some of the things which have been mooted on here are worse than it ever was. Every soldier's death is bound to be traumatic, as indeed is every violent death and there are a lot of those around still today. Think of every war widow trying to envisage her man's death.

Perhaps we should wait, then question, but try to move on. H.



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
>
> > > [snip] *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not convinced of.
> > >
>
> Eileen responded:
> > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
>
> Carol adds:
>
> I could have sworn that I saw images of the X-rayed nail/arrowhead online but can't find them. Can anyone post the relevant link?
>
> I still think that the relic hypothesis is interesting and should not be dismissed out of hand. If people of Richard's era kept fragments of wood that they believed to be from the True Cross, I see no reason why a friar would not keep a nail that he believed to be from the same cross and place it with his dead king as a mark of pity and piety. Saying that it's plausible and worth exploring is, of course, far from assuming it to be true. I still hope that someone at the conference will raise the question.
>
> BTW, for anyone interested, you can download U of Leicester's complete PowerPoint presentation from this page:
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/presentations-by-speakers-at-the-press-conference-monday-4-february-1/
>
> (unfortunately, nothing on the nail, but George's friend may find it useful for the bones.
>
> Carol
>

I suppose we are all just nit picking the whole presentation, which was filmed and cut, and then presented to the baited breath public. There is absolutely no way we got all the information, which is why I am looking forward to the second installment. And yes, there are some valid criticisms, but then this was made to inform the general public, and I think the majority of the folks on this site are more informed than many scholars.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of hjnatdat
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



We keep getting at the poor old Leicester team - but Jo Appleby, despite her lack of tact, is a Cambridge trained archaeologist.

I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even a Roman nail. It doesn't help, in fact it makes it worse. I'm sure some of the things which have been mooted on here are worse than it ever was. Every soldier's death is bound to be traumatic, as indeed is every violent death and there are a lot of those around still today. Think of every war widow trying to envisage her man's death.

Perhaps we should wait, then question, but try to move on. H.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
>
> > > [snip] *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not convinced of.
> > >
>
> Eileen responded:
> > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
>
> Carol adds:
>
> I could have sworn that I saw images of the X-rayed nail/arrowhead online but can't find them. Can anyone post the relevant link?
>
> I still think that the relic hypothesis is interesting and should not be dismissed out of hand. If people of Richard's era kept fragments of wood that they believed to be from the True Cross, I see no reason why a friar would not keep a nail that he believed to be from the same cross and place it with his dead king as a mark of pity and piety. Saying that it's plausible and worth exploring is, of course, far from assuming it to be true. I still hope that someone at the conference will raise the question.
>
> BTW, for anyone interested, you can download U of Leicester's complete PowerPoint presentation from this page:
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/presentations-by-speakers-at-the-press-conference-monday-4-february-1/
>
> (unfortunately, nothing on the nail, but George's friend may find it useful for the bones.
>
> Carol
>

> I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were
> tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team
> found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side,
> which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they
> say nothing about tied hands:

> http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll
> down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)

Hmm. That is pretty similar, isn't it? OK: if his hands are together like
that because he was wrapped in a shroud, where does that take us?

It removes the evidence for his being still in rigor when he was buried,
which extends the possible interval between death and burial. In fact, it
means he almost certainly *wasn't* still in rigor, otherwise the pressure of
the cloth wouldn't have moved his hands into that position. So we then have
no evidence of how he was tied across the horse, other than the fact that he
was stabbed in the backside, which could have happened at any point or even
have been a battle-wound where somebody tried to stab up under his armour -
which, if so, he probably wouldn't have felt, because adrenalin is quite
anaesthetic and he didn't live long enough for the adrenalin to wear off. I
would expect them to try to kill him as far as possible without damaging his
armour, because it would be very valuable if they could strip it off intact
and sell it.

For what it may be worth, I too have always had the impression that he was
bound face-up.

We no longer have the impression of haste created by his being buried in
rigor. But then we can say that the grave is definitely too short, because
if he was no longer in rigor he could had been laid out straight, and
wasn't. So we still have that combination of haste - the too-short grave -
and care - the important and laborious-to-achieve position and the shroud,
which still suggests the friars doing their best for him as fast as
possible, in case somebody stopped them, and that he was buried kindly.

It also raises the possibility that that piece of metal is neither a weapon
nor a relic but the remains of something (which could well be a nail or an
arrow, if they were in an hurry and that was what was handy) used to pin the
shroud closed.

> I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this
> death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to
> us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or
> relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even
> a Roman nail.

For me, it's not about finding comfort - although that may be a welcome
side-effect - but about deriving as much information as possible and
unravelling a puzzle. As somebody with a degree in Biological Science I
have a profound distrust of experts, especially archaeologists who tend to
assume everything is ritual unless otherwise proven and to have, for the
most part, fixed agendas and very little imagination.

I agree with you about letting it go, however, just watching the documentary over again, I can't help being struck by how cavalier & insensitive Dr Appleby comes across. It's really too bad that her part couldn't have been done more professionally.

A J

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> We keep getting at the poor old Leicester team - but Jo Appleby, despite her lack of tact, is a Cambridge trained archaeologist.
>
> I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even a Roman nail. It doesn't help, in fact it makes it worse. I'm sure some of the things which have been mooted on here are worse than it ever was. Every soldier's death is bound to be traumatic, as indeed is every violent death and there are a lot of those around still today. Think of every war widow trying to envisage her man's death.
>
> Perhaps we should wait, then question, but try to move on. H.
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Claire wrote:
> >
> > > > [snip] *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not convinced of.
> > > >
> >
> > Eileen responded:
> > > It is definitely a nail...as they x-rayed it...Eileen
> >
> > Carol adds:
> >
> > I could have sworn that I saw images of the X-rayed nail/arrowhead online but can't find them. Can anyone post the relevant link?
> >
> > I still think that the relic hypothesis is interesting and should not be dismissed out of hand. If people of Richard's era kept fragments of wood that they believed to be from the True Cross, I see no reason why a friar would not keep a nail that he believed to be from the same cross and place it with his dead king as a mark of pity and piety. Saying that it's plausible and worth exploring is, of course, far from assuming it to be true. I still hope that someone at the conference will raise the question.
> >
> > BTW, for anyone interested, you can download U of Leicester's complete PowerPoint presentation from this page:
> >
> > http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/press-conference-4-february/presentations-by-speakers-at-the-press-conference-monday-4-february-1/
> >
> > (unfortunately, nothing on the nail, but George's friend may find it useful for the bones.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

From: ajhibbard@...
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> I agree with you about letting it go, however, just watching the
> documentary over again, I can't help being struck by how cavalier &
> insensitive Dr Appleby comes across.

She was probably freaked out - none of them really wanted to admit that a
dead king really did whistle up one of his followers like a dog, saying "Oi,
I'm over here - get a wiggle on."

I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
the church? And why would they place it in a hurried burial with a
defeated king? If it were Richard's, people would know it, and would
search it out. Monks took it? Off to the Tower! Oh and dig it up for the
new king! If it were known about Henry would have done anything to
locate it.
No. I think we had best stay with the experts who say it is of Roman
origin, and by the age of the metal it seems as if they are right this time.
Paul

On 18/02/2013 15:30, ellrosa1452 wrote:
> Yes, that's another reason the thought of displaying Richard's bones made me shudder, especially when you consider how religious he was. The Church, in those days, found many ways to make money.
> Elaine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>> I think its an interesting suggestion that the nail was put in the grave with Richard as a holy relic. After all they were always flogging stuff like 'true' pieces of the cross, various saints fingers, toes and odd and ends. Could this very old nail have been attributed being one of the nails from the Crucifixion. If so...did Richard own it or was it a kindly friar placed it in the grave. I think it makes sense...And its rather comforting in a way too....Eileen
>>
>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>>> Oh now that is interesting⬦. On the Channel 4 Documentary, sorry I forget the speaker but he turned and said something to the effect â¬Swell, you see, I hate to tell you, but this is just a common Roman nailâ¬ý. No archeologist, me⬦..but, I wondered *WHAT*, how it be in the same layer as the remains? And how exactly with the bones?
>>>
>>> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
>>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 7:48 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Burial
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:07 PM
>>> Subject: RE: Burial
>>>
>>>> Another no-no for Dr. Oops Appleby??? I thought it odd as well, as they
>>>> â¬Sthoughtâ¬ý it was lodged in the vertebrae.
>>> I'm not entirely coinvinced it's a nail anyway - it may be an arrowhead, as
>>> they first thought. It wouldn't have to have been in his back - he could,
>>> again, have been shot in the chest and the arrowhead fell through and got
>>> mixed up with his spine when the body decayed. But I'm concerned that *if*
>>> it's a Roman nail, the position means it may have been a relic placed on his
>>> chest deliberately, and I hope they aren't just dismissing it and chucking
>>> it aside as debris, because it could be significant.
>>>
>>> Even if it's a local Roman nail it could still have been something that
>>> somebody saw as a luck charm, and buried with him, because we know people
>>> then thought that stone age arrowheads were elf shots or thunderbolts, and
>>> they might well have thought that an ancient bit of iron from deep
>>> underground was something similar.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...>
To: <>
Cc: <paul.bale@...>
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


>I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
> monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
> the church?

I don't think anybody was talking of relics of immense value - I certainly
wasn't. People bought bits of things they thought were relics from
unscrupulous traders, and wore them - I was thinking of some friar's
personal luck-piece. It wouldn't have to be from the True Cross - it could
be "this is a nail from the house of St Teresa" or whatever, or something
picked up during a pilgrimage to Canterbury or St Albans (where Roman
remains are all around you). Or even a horseshoe nail, because some people
think they're lucky. But I like Carol's idea about a shroud, in which case
the metal may well be the remains of something used to pin the shroud in
place.

carole hughes wrote:
>
> Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact. 
>
> Carole

Carol responds:

That might be the case except that she continued to refer to him as a "hunchback" and was only partially corrected by a colleague, who admitted that "hunchback" was not a scientific term. Possibly, she was reprimanded for her careless and unscientific language by Lin Foxhall, who carefully distinguished between kyphosis ("hunchback") and scoliosis but got very little time in the documentary. Certainly, Jo Appleby (clearly a junior member of the team) was more careful during the press conference. However, Oops Appleby refers to another slip, not of the tongue but of the mattock, which resulted in damage to the most valuable skull she is likely ever to excavate.

Your feelings are understandable, but it would be nice if you had a bit of tolerance for ours. Calling her Oops Appleby on this forum is a harmless outlet for our frustration over her unprofessional behavior on more than one occasion. Her use of the term "hunchback" did a great deal of irremediable damage whereas it's highly unlikely that our admittedly disrespectful remarks will in any way damage her career prospects. (That slip of the mattock and her unscientific language might do so, however.)

BTW, there are two Carols and another Carole on this forum. I haven't felt this "caroled" since first grade!

Carol

Paul

I see thick aluminum foil in my future

George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...>
> To: <>
> Cc: <paul.bale@...>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>> I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
>> monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
>> the church?
>
> I don't think anybody was talking of relics of immense value - I certainly
> wasn't. People bought bits of things they thought were relics from
> unscrupulous traders, and wore them - I was thinking of some friar's
> personal luck-piece. It wouldn't have to be from the True Cross - it could
> be "this is a nail from the house of St Teresa" or whatever, or something
> picked up during a pilgrimage to Canterbury or St Albans (where Roman
> remains are all around you). Or even a horseshoe nail, because some people
> think they're lucky. But I like Carol's idea about a shroud, in which case
> the metal may well be the remains of something used to pin the shroud in
> place.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Paul and George....now then...I cannot understand why you think that a kindly friar placing a holy relic in Richard's grave is beyond the bounds of probability....Im not saying this happened but I am saying it is possible...thank you very much...:0)

Now then...nicknames...I really do not think Oooooops is a horrible or nasty nickname...I think it is one that perhaps Dr Appleby herself could see the funny side to...if she has a sense of humour, which hopefuly she has. In schools,offices, families all over the world people are known by nicknames...As a child I was called Keyhole Kate (because I was a nosy child) as well as Droopy Drawers (I dunno about that one)by my dad. This has done me no harm........I think...Eileen

PS...can we please retain some a little sense of humour on here..it is bad and sad enough at times...Eileen

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Paul
>
> I see thick aluminum foil in my future
>
> George
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...>
> > To: <>
> > Cc: <paul.bale@...>
> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:00 PM
> > Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >> I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
> >> monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
> >> the church?
> >
> > I don't think anybody was talking of relics of immense value - I certainly
> > wasn't. People bought bits of things they thought were relics from
> > unscrupulous traders, and wore them - I was thinking of some friar's
> > personal luck-piece. It wouldn't have to be from the True Cross - it could
> > be "this is a nail from the house of St Teresa" or whatever, or something
> > picked up during a pilgrimage to Canterbury or St Albans (where Roman
> > remains are all around you). Or even a horseshoe nail, because some people
> > think they're lucky. But I like Carol's idea about a shroud, in which case
> > the metal may well be the remains of something used to pin the shroud in
> > place.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Dear Droopy Draws
It's not that I don't think you have a point, however like Paul I am very skeptical about the religious significance of a rusty nail being found in a spot that has Roman settlement. This I have found was continually robbed of stone ( the city walls have been discovered in a collapsed state)
To be reused as building material perhaps even the White Boar
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:11 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Paul and George....now then...I cannot understand why you think that a kindly friar placing a holy relic in Richard's grave is beyond the bounds of probability....Im not saying this happened but I am saying it is possible...thank you very much...:0)
>
> Now then...nicknames...I really do not think Oooooops is a horrible or nasty nickname...I think it is one that perhaps Dr Appleby herself could see the funny side to...if she has a sense of humour, which hopefuly she has. In schools,offices, families all over the world people are known by nicknames...As a child I was called Keyhole Kate (because I was a nosy child) as well as Droopy Drawers (I dunno about that one)by my dad. This has done me no harm........I think...Eileen
>
> PS...can we please retain some a little sense of humour on here..it is bad and sad enough at times...Eileen
>
> --- In , George Butterfield wrote:
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > I see thick aluminum foil in my future
> >
> > George
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> > > From: "Paul Trevor Bale"
> > > To: >
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:00 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Burial
> > >
> > >
> > >> I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
> > >> monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
> > >> the church?
> > >
> > > I don't think anybody was talking of relics of immense value - I certainly
> > > wasn't. People bought bits of things they thought were relics from
> > > unscrupulous traders, and wore them - I was thinking of some friar's
> > > personal luck-piece. It wouldn't have to be from the True Cross - it could
> > > be "this is a nail from the house of St Teresa" or whatever, or something
> > > picked up during a pilgrimage to Canterbury or St Albans (where Roman
> > > remains are all around you). Or even a horseshoe nail, because some people
> > > think they're lucky. But I like Carol's idea about a shroud, in which case
> > > the metal may well be the remains of something used to pin the shroud in
> > > place.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

So, every day is Christmas with all you wonderful Carol(e)s!!!!!

On Feb 18, 2013, at 3:42 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



carole hughes wrote:
>
> Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact.ý
>
> Carole

Carol responds:

That might be the case except that she continued to refer to him as a "hunchback" and was only partially corrected by a colleague, who admitted that "hunchback" was not a scientific term. Possibly, she was reprimanded for her careless and unscientific language by Lin Foxhall, who carefully distinguished between kyphosis ("hunchback") and scoliosis but got very little time in the documentary. Certainly, Jo Appleby (clearly a junior member of the team) was more careful during the press conference. However, Oops Appleby refers to another slip, not of the tongue but of the mattock, which resulted in damage to the most valuable skull she is likely ever to excavate.

Your feelings are understandable, but it would be nice if you had a bit of tolerance for ours. Calling her Oops Appleby on this forum is a harmless outlet for our frustration over her unprofessional behavior on more than one occasion. Her use of the term "hunchback" did a great deal of irremediable damage whereas it's highly unlikely that our admittedly disrespectful remarks will in any way damage her career prospects. (That slip of the mattock and her unscientific language might do so, however.)

BTW, there are two Carols and another Carole on this forum. I haven't felt this "caroled" since first grade!

Carol

From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> It's not that I don't think you have a point, however like Paul I am very
> skeptical about the religious significance of a rusty nail being found in
> a spot that has Roman settlement.

The point is, it's not under his body - it's in it. So it's very unlikely
to be something which was in the ground under him. It could be something
which was in his body when he was buried, i.e. an arrow (no actual evidence
has been produced yet that it's not an arrow, and it certainly looks
extremely like one). Or it could be something which was on top of him, and
if so, its position means it was round about the middle of his chest.

It could be something which was randomly in the earth which was laid over
him, but presumably they covered him with the earth they'd dug out of the
grave, and it doesn't look very deep, so then you have to have a Roman nail
which for some reason was up near the surface. The simplest explanation
would be that it's a Mediaeval nail, in which case it could perfectly well
be floating around in the top two feet or so of soil - maybe they'd been
re-smelting Roman iron or something. But if it's a genuine Roman nail its
appearance so near the surface is odd.

Robbing stone is one thing - but this isn't stone, or something which has
come from stone. At most, it's come from the roof of a stone building, but
the position of the car park is near the edge of the Roman town, not near
the big public buildings, so we're probably talking wooden huts. I suppose
it might have been churned to a higher level when the foundations of the
church were put in, if they go down into the Roman layer, but it's an
anomalous object which takes work to explain.

Imo the most likely thing is that they've misidentified it, and it's either
an arrow, or a Mediaeval nail, or some kind of pin used on his shroud. But
if it *is* a Roman nail, then it's in a very odd place.

Hilary wrote:
>
> We keep getting at the poor old Leicester team - but Jo Appleby, despite her lack of tact, is a Cambridge trained archaeologist.
>
> I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even a Roman nail. It doesn't help, in fact it makes it worse. I'm sure some of the things which have been mooted on here are worse than it ever was. Every soldier's death is bound to be traumatic, as indeed is every violent death and there are a lot of those around still today. Think of every war widow trying to envisage her man's death.
>
> Perhaps we should wait, then question, but try to move on. H.

Carol responds:

I think that we're each trying to find comfort in whatever way we can. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that a Roman nail might be a religious relic or with stating that the Leicester team may have been premature in some of their conclusions. Why not let each of us be unhappy in our own way? We can and probably should be more careful with subject lines, so that other posters can skip threads that they find disturbing or irrelevant, but please don't say that speculation about specific details, whatever they may be, doesn't help. Of course, it helps the person posting or that person wouldn't make that suggestion. What bothers me is posts that attempt to reestablish myths that have been disproved by this discovery. We might as well just dump his bones in the River Soar and be done with it as resurrect More's myth of the withered arm. One myth down. Hundreds left to go. I can only hope that this is the darkness before the dawn.

Carol

Amen, sister! Testify!

That's the best description of what is certainly my reaction to what I've seen of the good doctor's professionalism--a sentiment I believe is shared by many members of the board.

Using the medically meaningless term "hunchback", when even five minutes' worth of research would identify it as the history nerd equivalent of handing a loaded bazooka to the opposing army, is an astoundingly tone-deaf action for someone who is permitted to call herself by the highest honorific we bestow to academics--and she did it more than once, despite the example of her own department head (that is, her boss) taking a completely different approach of careful, painstaking, never-omitted explanation of why it's not a valid term, or a valid diagnosis, for the skeletal remains.

That's not the bad part, though. A couple of people here have researched archeological practice, and a few have even taken part in archeological investigations, and many more of us haunt cable TV for any show, fictional or actual, depicting dedicated people crouching in unpromising-looking holes in the ground, digging up evidence of the past, whether recent or distant. Every person on this board watched Dr. Appleby blithely explain that she was cleaning out the area right next to the partially exhumed skeleton with a mattock and struck the skull because it wasn't where she expected it to be. Despite our differing levels of expertise, every single one of us who saw that moment has said, "Wait... what? Is that... that isn't normal, is it? Do they do that? Are they allowed to do that? Aren't they experts? Is this how an expert does this?"

Why was she using a heavy digging tool anywhere near a partially exhumed skeleton she was tasked with removing from the site? Why didn't she have a thin-bladed trowel? Or better yet, a brush? Did it not occur to her that, in an era in which beheading was a horrendously common cause of death, just because the skull wasn't exactly where she expected to find it, it might be somewhere in the same general vicinity? What did Dr. Morris, who was documenting the dig as she performed it, say to her about using the mattock? Did he say he didn't think it was a good idea? Did she listen?

It's not just the amateurs here, though. We've asked these questions of professionals, including park rangers and archeologists, and all we've gotten in return is horrified headshakes.

Skeletal remains are fragile. Skulls look solid, but careless handling doesn't just introduce the risk of fragmentation; they're easily pulverized. This was a colossal risk, and as far as we're concerned, only the stupendous luck of the archeology team, characteristic of the entire project, kept the cranium of a king of England from existing only as a heap of talcum powder in the bottom of a plastic baggie. If I know this elementary thing about archeology, what possible excuse can someone who does it for a living have for rampant, unapologetic carelessness?

That is why we call her Dr. Oops. Yeah, it's disrespectful, slapdash, and childish. I'll say this, though; to this inexpert eye, so was the way Dr. Appleby handled that exhumation. I am by no means qualified to judge the quality of her work, but if she were an ER nurse, I think I'd rather just bleed out in the parking lot.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> carole hughes wrote:
> >
> > Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact. 
> >
> > Carole
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That might be the case except that she continued to refer to him as a "hunchback" and was only partially corrected by a colleague, who admitted that "hunchback" was not a scientific term. Possibly, she was reprimanded for her careless and unscientific language by Lin Foxhall, who carefully distinguished between kyphosis ("hunchback") and scoliosis but got very little time in the documentary. Certainly, Jo Appleby (clearly a junior member of the team) was more careful during the press conference. However, Oops Appleby refers to another slip, not of the tongue but of the mattock, which resulted in damage to the most valuable skull she is likely ever to excavate.
>
> Your feelings are understandable, but it would be nice if you had a bit of tolerance for ours. Calling her Oops Appleby on this forum is a harmless outlet for our frustration over her unprofessional behavior on more than one occasion. Her use of the term "hunchback" did a great deal of irremediable damage whereas it's highly unlikely that our admittedly disrespectful remarks will in any way damage her career prospects. (That slip of the mattock and her unscientific language might do so, however.)
>
> BTW, there are two Carols and another Carole on this forum. I haven't felt this "caroled" since first grade!
>
> Carol
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:18 AM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Every person on this board watched Dr. Appleby blithely explain that she
> was cleaning out the area right next to the partially exhumed skeleton
> with a mattock and struck the skull because it wasn't where she expected
> it to be. Despite our differing levels of expertise, every single one of
> us who saw that moment has said, "Wait... what? Is that... that isn't
> normal, is it? Do they do that? Are they allowed to do that? Aren't they
> experts? Is this how an expert does this?"

I also wondered at the fact that she just seemed to have literally bashed
away, digging down to the skeleton apparently as fast as possible, instead
of removing the earth a bit at a time and looking for things like e.g. seeds
which might tell you what season the person was buried. Especially as they
didn't know for sure that it *was* Richard at that point, and ought to have
been looking for minute clues which might tell them who else it was, if it
wasn't him.

But she probably feels quite bad about having made a fool of herself.

Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> So, every day is Christmas with all you wonderful Carol(e)s!!!!!
>
Carol (T) responds:

Thank you! Don't know how I got the name, though, since I was born an hour before Easter. I guess my mother just liked it--and so did a lot of other mothers that year. Not as bad as being an Elizabeth in Ricardian England, though!

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
[snip]
> Imo the most likely thing is that they've misidentified it, and it's either an arrow, or a Mediaeval nail, or some kind of pin used on his shroud. But if it *is* a Roman nail, then it's in a very odd place.


Carol responds:

Claire, I know that I saw both photos and X-rays of the nail/arrowhead at one time, but I can't turn up anything in a Google search. Can you (or anyone) link me to those photos, which we can then compare with other nails or arrowheads of the same period.

Thanks,
Carol

Carol
The photos and comparison where seen on "The King Under the Carpark"
George

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:48 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > Imo the most likely thing is that they've misidentified it, and it's either an arrow, or a Mediaeval nail, or some kind of pin used on his shroud. But if it *is* a Roman nail, then it's in a very odd place.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Claire, I know that I saw both photos and X-rays of the nail/arrowhead at one time, but I can't turn up anything in a Google search. Can you (or anyone) link me to those photos, which we can then compare with other nails or arrowheads of the same period.
>
> Thanks,
> Carol
>
>

George Butterfield wrote:
>
> Carol
> The photos and comparison where seen on "The King Under the Carpark"
>
Carol responds:

Well, yes, I saw them there, but I'm sure that I also saw still photos online, just as we've seen photos of the skeleton, the skull, and even the vertebrae online. Unforunately, the PowerPoint presentation doesn't contain them.

Carol

I see no puzzle about his burial. He was killed in battle, put on display in Leicester and buried in a grave which was too small. Don't think anyone disputes that. What I for one dispute is the attribution of the term hunchback to him but that can't be unravelled except by experts because the people that matter, in this case the media, will only accept it from 'the experts'. And I agree we need the right experts i.e. medical/forensic. Getting anyone to retract that term 'hunchback' now is going to involve a lot of courage on the part of someone.  H.


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:37
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

> I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this
> death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to
> us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or
> relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even
> a Roman nail.

For me, it's not about finding comfort - although that may be a welcome
side-effect - but about deriving as much information as possible and
unravelling a puzzle. As somebody with a degree in Biological Science I
have a profound distrust of experts, especially archaeologists who tend to
assume everything is ritual unless otherwise proven and to have, for the
most part, fixed agendas and very little imagination.

It's just that I can probably dig up Roman nails in my back garden - they were here for four hundred years! Sorry, but I'm with Paul and George on this one. I'd have been more concerned if we'd found a George VI coin down there.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hilary wrote:
> >
> > We keep getting at the poor old Leicester team - but Jo Appleby, despite her lack of tact, is a Cambridge trained archaeologist.
> >
> > I'm with Paul and Maire - we seem to be continually chewing over this death and we can't really conclude anything until the experts come back to us (hopefully on 2nd). It's like re-living the death of a friend or relative again and again and trying to find comfort in speculations, even a Roman nail. It doesn't help, in fact it makes it worse. I'm sure some of the things which have been mooted on here are worse than it ever was. Every soldier's death is bound to be traumatic, as indeed is every violent death and there are a lot of those around still today. Think of every war widow trying to envisage her man's death.
> >
> > Perhaps we should wait, then question, but try to move on. H.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think that we're each trying to find comfort in whatever way we can. I see nothing wrong with suggesting that a Roman nail might be a religious relic or with stating that the Leicester team may have been premature in some of their conclusions. Why not let each of us be unhappy in our own way? We can and probably should be more careful with subject lines, so that other posters can skip threads that they find disturbing or irrelevant, but please don't say that speculation about specific details, whatever they may be, doesn't help. Of course, it helps the person posting or that person wouldn't make that suggestion. What bothers me is posts that attempt to reestablish myths that have been disproved by this discovery. We might as well just dump his bones in the River Soar and be done with it as resurrect More's myth of the withered arm. One myth down. Hundreds left to go. I can only hope that this is the darkness before the dawn.
>
> Carol
>

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> It's just that I can probably dig up Roman nails in my back garden -

Sure - but how deep? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have got
there by chance and to have coincidentally been on top of his chest, just
that it requires some special pleading to explain what it would be doing at
such a shallow level, so other explanations are possible. Including that
it's *not* a Roman nail, since the X-rays show it looking apparently
identical to an arrow-head except bent a bit.

Perhaps we need them to define what they mean by a Roman nail. I know this sounds daft but is it
 
a. a nail from Rome (though how you define it came in someone's luggage I don't know)   or
b. a common nail of Roman design which would have been used by the population of these Isles for about four hundred years and would be everywhere, including in my allotment, which will have been churned through the years many times and no doubt also dumped in skips many times
 
I'm honestly not being sarcastic - it's a valid question.
What I would add is that Jo Appleby went to the college where Mary Beard is Prof - so she should know a Roman nail.  Just trying to help.    H.
 
 


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 14:38
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

From: hjnatdat
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> It's just that I can probably dig up Roman nails in my back garden -

Sure - but how deep? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have got
there by chance and to have coincidentally been on top of his chest, just
that it requires some special pleading to explain what it would be doing at
such a shallow level, so other explanations are possible. Including that
it's *not* a Roman nail, since the X-rays show it looking apparently
identical to an arrow-head except bent a bit.

If you dig a hole.. You take out dirt.. If that dirt has junk in it and you
place it on top of whatever it will no longer be in the original strata....
if the building had been demolished it would be above layers to start
with......this is not rocket science....



George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Burial





From: hjnatdat
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> It's just that I can probably dig up Roman nails in my back garden -

Sure - but how deep? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have got
there by chance and to have coincidentally been on top of his chest, just
that it requires some special pleading to explain what it would be doing at
such a shallow level, so other explanations are possible. Including that
it's *not* a Roman nail, since the X-rays show it looking apparently
identical to an arrow-head except bent a bit.

Agreed George - and that's not really a shallow level, given Roman structures remain
well above ground around and about in Leicester. Two of the 'digs' I helped on these were
always coming up, makes using a Metal Detector on a Roman Site quite frustrating :)
In answer to another query , the nails were most likely produced fairly locally, not in Rome




________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013 10:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Burial


 
If you dig a hole.. You take out dirt.. If that dirt has junk in it and you
place it on top of whatever it will no longer be in the original strata....
if the building had been demolished it would be above layers to start
with......this is not rocket science....

George

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:39 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

From: hjnatdat
To:

Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:06 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> It's just that I can probably dig up Roman nails in my back garden -

Sure - but how deep? I'm not saying it's impossible for it to have got
there by chance and to have coincidentally been on top of his chest, just
that it requires some special pleading to explain what it would be doing at
such a shallow level, so other explanations are possible. Including that
it's *not* a Roman nail, since the X-rays show it looking apparently
identical to an arrow-head except bent a bit.

When considering shrouds, Bodies in rigor, coffins etc, I wonder if bodies from the battle [Other than Richard's] found a resting place in the Grey friars on that post battle day.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:26
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>> I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were
>> tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team
>> found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side,
>> which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they
>> say nothing about tied hands:
>
>> http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll
>> down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)
>
>Hmm. That is pretty similar, isn't it? OK: if his hands are together like
>that because he was wrapped in a shroud, where does that take us?
>
>It removes the evidence for his being still in rigor when he was buried,
>which extends the possible interval between death and burial. In fact, it
>means he almost certainly *wasn't* still in rigor, otherwise the pressure of
>the cloth wouldn't have moved his hands into that position. So we then have
>no evidence of how he was tied across the horse, other than the fact that he
>was stabbed in the backside, which could have happened at any point or even
>have been a battle-wound where somebody tried to stab up under his armour -
>which, if so, he probably wouldn't have felt, because adrenalin is quite
>anaesthetic and he didn't live long enough for the adrenalin to wear off. I
>would expect them to try to kill him as far as possible without damaging his
>armour, because it would be very valuable if they could strip it off intact
>and sell it.
>
>For what it may be worth, I too have always had the impression that he was
>bound face-up.
>
>We no longer have the impression of haste created by his being buried in
>rigor. But then we can say that the grave is definitely too short, because
>if he was no longer in rigor he could had been laid out straight, and
>wasn't. So we still have that combination of haste - the too-short grave -
>and care - the important and laborious-to-achieve position and the shroud,
>which still suggests the friars doing their best for him as fast as
>possible, in case somebody stopped them, and that he was buried kindly.
>
>It also raises the possibility that that piece of metal is neither a weapon
>nor a relic but the remains of something (which could well be a nail or an
>arrow, if they were in an hurry and that was what was handy) used to pin the
>shroud closed.
>
>
>
>
>

A lot are supposed to be buried in Dadlington churchyard.



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:24
Subject: Re: Burial

 

When considering shrouds, Bodies in rigor, coffins etc, I wonder if bodies from the battle [Other than Richard's] found a resting place in the Grey friars on that post battle day.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:26
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>> I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were
>> tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team
>> found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side,
>> which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they
>> say nothing about tied hands:
>
>> http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll
>> down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)
>
>Hmm. That is pretty similar, isn't it? OK: if his hands are together like
>that because he was wrapped in a shroud, where does that take us?
>
>It removes the evidence for his being still in rigor when he was buried,
>which extends the possible interval between death and burial. In fact, it
>means he almost certainly *wasn't* still in rigor, otherwise the pressure of
>the cloth wouldn't have moved his hands into that position. So we then have
>no evidence of how he was tied across the horse, other than the fact that he
>was stabbed in the backside, which could have happened at any point or even
>have been a battle-wound where somebody tried to stab up under his armour -
>which, if so, he probably wouldn't have felt, because adrenalin is quite
>anaesthetic and he didn't live long enough for the adrenalin to wear off. I
>would expect them to try to kill him as far as possible without damaging his
>armour, because it would be very valuable if they could strip it off intact
>and sell it.
>
>For what it may be worth, I too have always had the impression that he was
>bound face-up.
>
>We no longer have the impression of haste created by his being buried in
>rigor. But then we can say that the grave is definitely too short, because
>if he was no longer in rigor he could had been laid out straight, and
>wasn't. So we still have that combination of haste - the too-short grave -
>and care - the important and laborious-to-achieve position and the shroud,
>which still suggests the friars doing their best for him as fast as
>possible, in case somebody stopped them, and that he was buried kindly.
>
>It also raises the possibility that that piece of metal is neither a weapon
>nor a relic but the remains of something (which could well be a nail or an
>arrow, if they were in an hurry and that was what was handy) used to pin the
>shroud closed.
>
>
>
>
>

I had a 35 year career in forensic psychiatric nursing. At the beginning in 1964/65 terms like 'Idiot', 'Imbecile', 'Cretin' and 'Spastic' were ALL in common usage, these disappeared over the years as more [Kinder?] 'Politically Correct' terms emerged. 'Hunchback' was probably a similar term, though still used in earlier years. 

Slightly later but perhaps more related to make the point was the ceremony of 'Riding the Black Lad' in which an effigy of a knight in black armour was paraded around Middleton in Lancashire.

  This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.

  Several attempts to continue the tradition have involved trying to 'Change the name' to make it sound less aimed at ethnic minorities [Which it never was!! - Unless Sir Ralph as a latter-day 'Knight of the Shires' was one.]

  Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]    
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 21:42
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>carole hughes wrote:
>>
>> Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact. 
>>
>> Carole
>
>Carol responds:
>
>That might be the case except that she continued to refer to him as a "hunchback" and was only partially corrected by a colleague, who admitted that "hunchback" was not a scientific term. Possibly, she was reprimanded for her careless and unscientific language by Lin Foxhall, who carefully distinguished between kyphosis ("hunchback") and scoliosis but got very little time in the documentary. Certainly, Jo Appleby (clearly a junior member of the team) was more careful during the press conference. However, Oops Appleby refers to another slip, not of the tongue but of the mattock, which resulted in damage to the most valuable skull she is likely ever to excavate.
>
>Your feelings are understandable, but it would be nice if you had a bit of tolerance for ours. Calling her Oops Appleby on this forum is a harmless outlet for our frustration over her unprofessional behavior on more than one occasion. Her use of the term "hunchback" did a great deal of irremediable damage whereas it's highly unlikely that our admittedly disrespectful remarks will in any way damage her career prospects. (That slip of the mattock and her unscientific language might do so, however.)
>
>BTW, there are two Carols and another Carole on this forum. I haven't felt this "caroled" since first grade!
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I see no puzzle about his burial. He was killed in battle, put on display in Leicester and buried in a grave which was too small. Don't think anyone disputes that. What I for one dispute is the attribution of the term hunchback to him but that can't be unravelled except by experts because the people that matter, in this case the media, will only accept it from 'the experts'. And I agree we need the right experts i.e. medical/forensic. Getting anyone to retract that term 'hunchback' now is going to involve a lot of courage on the part of someone. H.

Carol responds:

Let's hope that the peer-reviewed articles in the journal "Antiquities" (which should have come out before the press conference; the documentary ought never to have been made) will undo the damage and receive as much publicity as the dig itself. If only they had taken Philippa's proposal seriously from the beginning and treated it, her, and Richard with all due respect.

Carol

Holy Relics Aside, it seems likely that SOMEONE might have had the decency to cover the body with [At least] A shroud and this was the pin. Human beings [Even in a era when death was more familiar] would have felt at least 'Uneasy' in the presence of a NAKED body of a young person in particular, [Somebodies father, somebodies son?] A Shroud was likely and a pin to fasten it.
  We might assume that SOME Monks were religious men??
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 22:11
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>Paul and George....now then...I cannot understand why you think that a kindly friar placing a holy relic in Richard's grave is beyond the bounds of probability....Im not saying this happened but I am saying it is possible...thank you very much...:0)
>
>Now then...nicknames...I really do not think Oooooops is a horrible or nasty nickname...I think it is one that perhaps Dr Appleby herself could see the funny side to...if she has a sense of humour, which hopefuly she has. In schools,offices, families all over the world people are known by nicknames...As a child I was called Keyhole Kate (because I was a nosy child) as well as Droopy Drawers (I dunno about that one)by my dad. This has done me no harm........I think...Eileen
>
>PS...can we please retain some a little sense of humour on here..it is bad and sad enough at times...Eileen
>
>--- In , George Butterfield wrote:
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> I see thick aluminum foil in my future
>>
>> George
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Feb 18, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> > From: "Paul Trevor Bale"
>> > To: >
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 9:00 PM
>> > Subject: Re: Burial
>> >
>> >
>> >> I think we are on a flight of fancy trip again here. Where would the
>> >> monks get a relic like you suggest Eileen, something of immense value to
>> >> the church?
>> >
>> > I don't think anybody was talking of relics of immense value - I certainly
>> > wasn't. People bought bits of things they thought were relics from
>> > unscrupulous traders, and wore them - I was thinking of some friar's
>> > personal luck-piece. It wouldn't have to be from the True Cross - it could
>> > be "this is a nail from the house of St Teresa" or whatever, or something
>> > picked up during a pilgrimage to Canterbury or St Albans (where Roman
>> > remains are all around you). Or even a horseshoe nail, because some people
>> > think they're lucky. But I like Carol's idea about a shroud, in which case
>> > the metal may well be the remains of something used to pin the shroud in
>> > place.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: Burial

 



--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I see no puzzle about his burial. He was killed in battle, put on display in Leicester and buried in a grave which was too small. Don't think anyone disputes that. What I for one dispute is the attribution of the term hunchback to him but that can't be unravelled except by experts because the people that matter, in this case the media, will only accept it from 'the experts'. And I agree we need the right experts i.e. medical/forensic. Getting anyone to retract that term 'hunchback' now is going to involve a lot of courage on the part of someone. H.

Carol responds:

Let's hope that the peer-reviewed articles in the journal "Antiquities" (which should have come out before the press conference; the documentary ought never to have been made) will undo the damage and receive as much publicity as the dig itself. If only they had taken Philippa's proposal seriously from the beginning and treated it, her, and Richard with all due respect.

Carol

From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: Re: Burial


> If you dig a hole.. You take out dirt.. If that dirt has junk in it and
> you
place it on top of whatever it will no longer be in the original strata....

Yes, of course, there's no need to be patronising - but the bottom of the
hole isn't very deep, so it requires the nail to have been already at a
shallow level, before being moved to an even shallower level. The whole
point about digging archaeological digs in layers is that you expect Roman
remains to be significantly lower down than Mediaeval ones. But it's
possible it was original churned to a higher level when the foundations of
the church were laid - or even by a mole.

Arthurian wrote:
> [snip] even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]    

Carol responds:

Yes, of course. We all know, as the Tudor propagandists either did not or pretended not to know, that physical appearance has no connection with a good or evil nature, but the tradition that we also see in fairy tales and the Salem Witch Trials (the good are young and handsome or beautiful; the wicked are old and ugly) has been applied to Richard for so long that it's inseparable from the tradition of his supposed wickedness. (See the National Portrait Gallery link that I provided in another post to see how the tradition is linked to his portraiture.)

The problem for us now is the gleeful claims by many people that the "fact" of his "hunchback" having been "proved" by his skeleton also "proves" that the rest of the Tudor tradition is true. That's why the careless misuse of "hunchback" not only in the documentary but in newspapers, magazines, and online articles perpetuates *all aspects* of the Tudor myth and makes our struggle to find the truth that much harder. Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.

Your point is, of course, a valid one, but you're preaching to the choir. Tell it to the Tudorites who think that the "hunchback" proves that he killed his nephews.

At least, it appears that the scoliosis sufferers are finally fighting back. With luck, we'll hear more about that in future.

Carol

On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
their leading lady!
Paul


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.

Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
previously taken from a poor widow.

> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]

Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
hero, because you're not physically perfect."

Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
he was held in great affection by those close to him.

I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.

Vickie

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

 
From: Arthurian
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.

Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
previously taken from a poor widow.

> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]

Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
hero, because you're not physically perfect."

Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
he was held in great affection by those close to him.

Scoliosis can be slight or severe. I read an account of Richard bodily lifting an opponent out of the saddle and throwing him, this doesn't sound like someone suffering from severe curvature of the spine to me.

When oh when are we to receive a scientific (unbiased) report into the examination of Richard's remains - the vertebrae will almost certainly reveal the extent or lack of scoliosis in his bones.

PG


--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>
> Vickie
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>  
> From: Arthurian
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
...
>
> > Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
> > Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
> > bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>
[edit]

From: Phaeton G
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Scoliosis can be slight or severe. I read an account of Richard bodily
> lifting an opponent out of the saddle and throwing him, this doesn't sound
> like someone suffering from severe curvature of the spine to me.

And he could lift von Poppelau's enormous lance! But a few years ago my
friend who has medium-level lateral scoliosis drop-kicked two guys who tried
to mug him at a cash machine.

[If anybody doesn't know what a drop kick is, you throw yourself down with
your hands on the floor and then fling your feet up in the air, catching
your opponent under the chin.]

Usain Bolt has Scoliosis. Fastest man in the world :-)

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

Just to cheer you up I was having a conversation the other day with two people, neither of them history buffs or Ricardians in fact one was an accountant and they both said
 
a.  it was a really good programme
b. Jo Appleby was unkind, condescending and unreasonable
c. they felt for Philippa who they thought did a good job.
 
So perhaps the voice of common sense does reign out there - well that's if you include accountants.  H. 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


 

On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
their leading lady!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

 I also wondered at the fact that she just seemed to have literally bashed
away, digging down to the skeleton apparently as fast as possible, instead
of removing the earth a bit at a time and looking for things like e.g. seeds
which might tell you what season the person was buried. Especially as they
didn't know for sure that it *was* Richard at that point, and ought to have
been looking for minute clues which might tell them who else it was, if it
wasn't him.

But she probably feels quite bad about having made a fool of herself.
From: Claire M Jordan

Liz replied:
I wonder how much of the cavalier treatment was due to the fact that they simply didn't think they'd find him and so it was just a chance to do a bit of what "they" wanted in terms of research for their Medieval Leicester project?  I'm also not sure if she feels bad about it - maybe about the effect it might have on her credibility at the moment but not about actually bashing his skull in?  To me she didn't seem especially embarrassed when she confessed to it, I thought she said it in a frivolous kind of way - definitely an "oops, look what I've done, silly me, ha ha".  As for the "hunchback" remark, frankly I think she really should have known better and I honestly wonder if she said it deliberately, especially since she didn't just say it once. 

I think there was a lot of time pressure (I recall they'd been given only another week) and I agree with you that they really didn't think they'd find Him - perhaps the odd monk. She comes across to me as hostile all the way through the programme. Perhaps it got on her nerves - a bit like some librarians can't bear talking in the library (sorry any librarians out there). Not everyone seeks a moment of fame, even nowadays.  Does Annettte know why, I wonder? H.


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 10:25
Subject: Re: Burial


 

 I also wondered at the fact that she just seemed to have literally bashed
away, digging down to the skeleton apparently as fast as possible, instead
of removing the earth a bit at a time and looking for things like e.g. seeds
which might tell you what season the person was buried. Especially as they
didn't know for sure that it *was* Richard at that point, and ought to have
been looking for minute clues which might tell them who else it was, if it
wasn't him.

But she probably feels quite bad about having made a fool of herself.
From: Claire M Jordan

Liz replied:
I wonder how much of the cavalier treatment was due to the fact that they simply didn't think they'd find him and so it was just a chance to do a bit of what "they" wanted in terms of research for their Medieval Leicester project?  I'm also not sure if she feels bad about it - maybe about the effect it might have on her credibility at the moment but not about actually bashing his skull in?  To me she didn't seem especially embarrassed when she confessed to it, I thought she said it in a frivolous kind of way - definitely an "oops, look what I've done, silly me, ha ha".  As for the "hunchback" remark, frankly I think she really should have known better and I honestly wonder if she said it deliberately, especially since she didn't just say it once. 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:37 AM
Subject: Re: Burial


> I think there was a lot of time pressure (I recall they'd been given only
> another week) and I agree with you that they really didn't think they'd
> find Him -

I think they were freaked out by the idea that a dead king had apparently
whistled to one of his followers and told her where to dig, and resentful
that an amateur using such an improbable method as "I know he's here and he
wants us to find him" had done their job for them. Having him be the first
thing (other than bits of flagstone, presumably) that they came to in the
first trench they dug, without even knowing in advance where in about an
acre of ground the choir was, is like getting a hole in one while
blindfolded. Also Appleby at least didn't seem to like people having
emotional sentiments about what to her was just an interesting specimen -
and, to be fair, if you dig up bodies for a living and you allow yourself to
think too emotionally about the person they used to be, you'd drive yourself
mad, because a lot of those bodies are going to be little kids or people who
died more or less unpleasantly.

But personally I liked the programme - even though I was seriously annoyed
by its failure to mention even in passing that there had been doubts about
Edward V's claim to the throne and that Parliament had asked Richard to take
over. It didn't have to take sides on whether it thought those doubts were
valid or describe them in detail - just mention that they existed.
Nevertheless, I thought it wasn't so much a programme about the
archaeological find but about the tension between Shakepeare's comic villain
and the fact that over five hundred years later tens or hundreds of
thousands of people all over the world still care about who they understand
the real Richard to have been as if he was their favourite cousin who died
last week. And it finished up in love and sorrow for a "bonny lad" who had
died young and rather horribly, and the programme-makers must have
sympathised with that view or they wouldn't have shot it like that.

I agree with their view,Phillipa was excellent but Jo Appleby was not at her best ,She was condescending in the extreme which was a bit ripe considering she caved in the skull with a mattock a mistake a first year Archaeology student would have been ashamed to make though she wasnt the least bit concerned by it .I do feel sorry for Ms Appleby as no matter how illustrous her future career she will always be famous as the girl who caved in Richard III skull not just for a few years but in every write up about the find ever .I dont know why Leicester has been dead set on displaying Richards bones,if I were them I would want him  out of sight and I would stick to using the replica skeleton .





________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 10:02
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


 
Just to cheer you up I was having a conversation the other day with two people, neither of them history buffs or Ricardians in fact one was an accountant and they both said
 
a.  it was a really good programme
b. Jo Appleby was unkind, condescending and unreasonable
c. they felt for Philippa who they thought did a good job.
 
So perhaps the voice of common sense does reign out there - well that's if you include accountants.  H. 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


 

On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
their leading lady!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 

  On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found,
'As Richard was in the River'!!. 

This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [I saw a heavily staffed dig near Berkeley Castle on a similar T.V. programme recently & we are all familiar with 'Time Team' & 'Meet the Ancestors' on the box. 

  NONE of these were so short of digging professionals as the Leicester/Richard dig appeared to be, this IN SPITE of the declared/ hoped for finding of such an historically important figure as Richard. 

  Perhaps, in defence of Dr Jo Appleby, we need to take this low level of support on board?
no doubt the full battalions of Leicester University 'Back Room Boys & Girls' will now bask in the light of this 'Sonne of Yorke'. 

I DO Hope my comments are 'Fair'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
>To:
>Cc: paul.bale@...
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
>> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
>Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
>As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
>the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
>their leading lady!
>Paul
>
>--
>Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>

I think they are fair, Arthur. I doubt whether many believed that what perhaps started off as a sort of soap documentary on mad Ricardian woman's dig would yield gold. And it was staffed accordingly. H


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 12:31
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 

  On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found,
'As Richard was in the River'!!. 

This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [I saw a heavily staffed dig near Berkeley Castle on a similar T.V. programme recently & we are all familiar with 'Time Team' & 'Meet the Ancestors' on the box. 

  NONE of these were so short of digging professionals as the Leicester/Richard dig appeared to be, this IN SPITE of the declared/ hoped for finding of such an historically important figure as Richard. 

  Perhaps, in defence of Dr Jo Appleby, we need to take this low level of support on board?
no doubt the full battalions of Leicester University 'Back Room Boys & Girls' will now bask in the light of this 'Sonne of Yorke'. 

I DO Hope my comments are 'Fair'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
>To:
>Cc: paul.bale@...
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
>> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
>Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
>As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
>the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
>their leading lady!
>Paul
>
>--
>Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>

I know one former patient of mine, who suffered badly from Asthma as a child, resulting in a 'Severe Deformity of his Chest' [He is in his early thirties.] This deformity is totally undetected when he is dressed, even in modern lightweight clothing. Richard might reasonably have had a virtually invisible deformity, especially when considered in armour or the rich clothing of  a prince royal.

' his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs'. 


  Like you I think the spinal column, though obviously abnormal, was laid out in a way that appeared to 'exaggerate' the said abnormality. 

Sir Ralph Assheton - [Local Rhyme]
Sweet Jesu for thy mercies sake and for thy tender passion,

Save us from the Axe of the Tower and from Sir Ralph of Assheton.

I understand that 'Riding the Black Lad' [Because of his Black Armour] carried on as a local tradition for several hundred years. [Source: The Monumental Brasses of Lancashire. Many Interesting Brasses survive in Middleton Church.

Kind Regards,

 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:55
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>
>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>previously taken from a poor widow.
>
>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>
>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>
>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>
>
>
>
>

  Vickie, 
            I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.

  In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>
>Vickie
>
>From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>
>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>previously taken from a poor widow.
>
>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>
>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>
>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thanks for posting that. I am certain that almost all of us know someone, or have someone is the family who is dealing with a serious and/or debilitating disease. It is amazing how courageous, patient, and absolutely amazing they are.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:30 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



Vickie,
I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.

In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>>
>To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis). What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>
>Vickie
>
>From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>
>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>previously taken from a poor widow.
>
>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>
>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>
>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think there was a lot of time pressure (I recall they'd been given only another week) and I agree with you that they really didn't think they'd find Him - perhaps the odd monk. She comes across to me as hostile all the way through the programme. Perhaps it got on her nerves - a bit like some librarians can't bear talking in the library (sorry any librarians out there). Not everyone seeks a moment of fame, even nowadays.  Does Annettte know why, I wonder? H.

Carol responds:

Annette doesn't want to talk about it. All I know is that she pulled out of the documentary when she saw that it was taking a direction that she didn't approve of. She didn't mention Jo Appleby specifically, but she certainly is unhappy with the careless use of the word "hunchback" by more than one person in the documentary.

My own theory is that Appleby's "knowledge" of Richard came from Shakespeare until she was corrected, too late to undo the damage, by Lin Foxhall. If so, that would explain her apparently condescending attitude toward Philippa. But I don't know her motivation, I'm only guessing, and if Annette knows, she didn't say.

Carol

Carol

Thanks Carol, you're probably right about Appleby's knowledge.  My guess is we shall never know what went on behind the scenes. But going back on that word is going to be HARD for someone.



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 15:17
Subject: Re: Burial

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think there was a lot of time pressure (I recall they'd been given only another week) and I agree with you that they really didn't think they'd find Him - perhaps the odd monk. She comes across to me as hostile all the way through the programme. Perhaps it got on her nerves - a bit like some librarians can't bear talking in the library (sorry any librarians out there). Not everyone seeks a moment of fame, even nowadays.  Does Annettte know why, I wonder? H.

Carol responds:

Annette doesn't want to talk about it. All I know is that she pulled out of the documentary when she saw that it was taking a direction that she didn't approve of. She didn't mention Jo Appleby specifically, but she certainly is unhappy with the careless use of the word "hunchback" by more than one person in the documentary.

My own theory is that Appleby's "knowledge" of Richard came from Shakespeare until she was corrected, too late to undo the damage, by Lin Foxhall. If so, that would explain her apparently condescending attitude toward Philippa. But I don't know her motivation, I'm only guessing, and if Annette knows, she didn't say.

Carol

Carol

Arthurian wrote:
>
> I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
> The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 

Carol responds:

Given the fact that 4.9 million people watched that documentary and "hunchback" came from the mouth of a scientist, yes, it matters. The belated partial concession by her colleague that "hunchback" is not a scientific term was insufficient, and IIRC Lin Foxhall's important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis did not appear in the documentary. The problem, as I've said before, is that the "hunchback" myth is linked to other aspects of the Richard-as-villain myth, and those who dislike him will leap on the "fact" of the "hunchback" as "proof" that the rest of the tradition is not just Tudor propaganda (or other biased and contradictory sources, but it's highly unlikely that the average viewer of the documentary knows about Mancini or the Croyland Chronicle).

Arthurian:
>   On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found, 'As Richard was in the River'!!. 
>
> This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [snip]

Carol responds:

It's certainly true that Richard )"I'll eat my hat") Buckley never expected to find Richard even when they found a skeleton almost immediately. Had he realized that Philippa knew what she was talking about--that Richard was recorded as having been buried in the choir of Greyfriars and that the discovery of his burial place was an extremely important find--he would perhaps have assigned a more experienced archaeologist to the dig. Meanwhile, Jo Appleby would have done well to have read up on the historical Richard in case it was him. It appears as if she and Philippa Langley failed to reach an understanding, to put it kindly. It's just possible that, had the cameras and microphones not been there, and had Philippa not been standing over her with obvious anxiety, Jo Appleby might have behaved in a more professional manner. I'm trying to think of a pair of similarly incompatible temperaments and points of view--maybe Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville with regard to Edward of Lancaster? I think it was impossible for them to understand each other.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> IIRC Lin Foxhall's important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis
> did not appear in the documentary.

It didn't. But it was stated firmly that his scoliosis was all lateral and
that that mean that you probably wouldn't be able to tell it was there at
all, unless you saw him bare.

On the down side, despite saying verbally that it was hard to tell from his
burial position which shoulder was higher, they reconstructed his appearance
from the back with the right shoulder dramatically higher. Higher even than
his left shoulder is high in the SoA portrait, which is the only one which
shows a clearly visible difference.

Lyn-Marie Cunliffe wrote:

"I agree with their view,Phillipa was excellent but Jo Appleby was not at
her best ,She was condescending in the extreme which was a bit ripe
considering she caved in the skull with a mattock a mistake a first year
Archaeology student would have been ashamed to make though she wasnt the
least bit concerned by it .I do feel sorry for Ms Appleby as no matter how
illustrous her future career she will always be famous as the girl who caved
in Richard III skull not just for a few years but in every write up about
the find ever .I dont know why Leicester has been dead set on displaying
Richards bones,if I were them I would want him out of sight and I would
stick to using the replica skeleton ."

Doug here:

I haven't seen the documentary (yet), but I wonder if some viewers'
disappointment with Dr. Appleby's conduct after the discovery could be due
to her (the Dr.'s) embarassment?
I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
close to the surface and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
It's also possible she may have permitted worries about any time constraints
to influence her actions, all the while knowing she really shouldn't have..
And then what happens? Not only is Richard discovered where Phillipa said he
was, but it's Appleby hereself who damages the skull!
In other words, she hadn't been as professional, for whatever reason, as she
knew she really should have been. Then, as if that wasn't bad enough (I'm
presuming here she'd recognized her error), her "mistake" was fully
documented and being shown to the world (and her fellow archeologists)! What
comes across as her being condescending, may be the outward manifestation of
Appleby knowing she goofed and the world knows it.
Well, that and the editing...
Doug



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: ""
<>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 10:02
Subject: Re: Re: Burial



Just to cheer you up I was having a conversation the other day with two
people, neither of them history buffs or Ricardians in fact one was an
accountant and they both said

a. it was a really good programme
b. Jo Appleby was unkind, condescending and unreasonable
c. they felt for Philippa who they thought did a good job.

So perhaps the voice of common sense does reign out there - well that's if
you include accountants. H.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Burial




On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her
> unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to
> do with that documentary.
Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
their leading lady!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!












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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


> I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
close to the surface

With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.

> and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?

And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
were propped forwards a bit.

[Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]

It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
she probably feels quite bad enough already.

My only real familiarity with historic digs, obviously is here in Texas. But, we work and I volunteer with several preservation groups, which have historic (USA Standards) buildings, and ancient indigenous skeletal remains. Those archeologists are "VERY" well read in the subject, have studied the terrain, and have some sympathy, if not empathy with the remains. In Europe, where history goes back so very, very far, and Roman nails can be found in your garden, it may be far easier to just approach the subject, with not much historic information. But, I would think technique dictates the finding of remains, and especially the likelihood of remains being found where you mattock is ever so swiftly heading. I can live with Dr. Appleby's cavalier attitude, she is young, and may not give a toss about the Yorks, Lancasters, or Tudors. But never have I experienced anyone just shoveling away, and then crashing into the skull. Granted, it was higher, but still, this is a 500+ year mystery maybe solved. She did herself no favors by just willy-nilly going into the pit with a mattock. As stated before a small trowel, a screen for each shovel of dirt, and various brushes and feathers for remain in SOP here.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:05 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial



Arthurian wrote:
>
> I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??]Â
> The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?.Â

Carol responds:

Given the fact that 4.9 million people watched that documentary and "hunchback" came from the mouth of a scientist, yes, it matters. The belated partial concession by her colleague that "hunchback" is not a scientific term was insufficient, and IIRC Lin Foxhall's important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis did not appear in the documentary. The problem, as I've said before, is that the "hunchback" myth is linked to other aspects of the Richard-as-villain myth, and those who dislike him will leap on the "fact" of the "hunchback" as "proof" that the rest of the tradition is not just Tudor propaganda (or other biased and contradictory sources, but it's highly unlikely that the average viewer of the documentary knows about Mancini or the Croyland Chronicle).

Arthurian:
> Â On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found, 'As Richard was in the River'!!.Â
>
> This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [snip]

Carol responds:

It's certainly true that Richard )"I'll eat my hat") Buckley never expected to find Richard even when they found a skeleton almost immediately. Had he realized that Philippa knew what she was talking about--that Richard was recorded as having been buried in the choir of Greyfriars and that the discovery of his burial place was an extremely important find--he would perhaps have assigned a more experienced archaeologist to the dig. Meanwhile, Jo Appleby would have done well to have read up on the historical Richard in case it was him. It appears as if she and Philippa Langley failed to reach an understanding, to put it kindly. It's just possible that, had the cameras and microphones not been there, and had Philippa not been standing over her with obvious anxiety, Jo Appleby might have behaved in a more professional manner. I'm trying to think of a pair of similarly incompatible temperaments and points of view--maybe Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville with regard to Edward of Lancaster? I think it was impossible for them to understand each other.

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip] [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.] [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks, Claire. For what it's worth, I only presented the shroud as an alternative explanation because of the similarly placed hands of another medieval skeleton excavated by the ULAS team at Sanvey Gate. The caption of that photo mentions nothing about possibly tied hands and states that the skeleton was probably wrapped in a shroud:

http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html

If anyone hasn't already seen this photograph, please scroll down the page to the third picture.

It struck me as odd that the same team would postulate a shroud in that case but not in Richard's, and I wonder if they would have arrived at the same conclusion if that had not suspected the identity of Richard's skeleton, just as we can be certain that Wright and Tanner based their conclusions about the bones in the urn on the presumed identity and supposed manner of death of Richard's nephews.

All the more need for analysis by independent experts.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Thanks, Claire. For what it's worth, I only presented the shroud as an
> alternative explanation because of the similarly placed hands of another
> medieval skeleton excavated by the ULAS team at Sanvey Gate. The caption
> of that photo mentions nothing about possibly tied hands and states that
> the skeleton was probably wrapped in a shroud:

I didn't take it that the skeleton had its hands tied within the shroud,
although I suppose it's a possibility in order to keep the position neat, in
the same way that a corpse would probably have the jaw bound shut. I
assumed the body had been laid out with the hands placed neatly together on
the stomach and was then wrapped in the shroud, but the effect of pulling
one bit of the shroud across to tighten it moved their arms to the side
within the cloth, and perhaps also caused the ankles to cross.

Richard must have been wrapped a bit more loosely, since his legs are laid
out flat with space between them, but when they realised that the grave was
too short and they had to bury him partly sitting, that might have caused an
asymmetric tension on the bindings which moved his hands to the side, still
together.

Carol & Arthur
In response to you remarks, I've mentioned before the line the programme took and how their point of view was structured around the premise of a couple of amateurs, i.e. Phillipa and John AH with their lucky finds, which the programme makers reinforced. At the conference earlier in the day, the UoL genealogist Professor Kevin Schürer, (University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise) was stressing how the University, now in charge of the operation, led a genealogical study to verify the connection between Canadian-born furniture maker Michael Ibsen and Richard III and appeared to minimise JAH's contribution.

Another aspect is that the University is now promoting how they led and discovered the remains, see on their website "Meet the team who" etc. I feel that the contributions made by Phillipa and JAH, and the Richard III society, will be airbrushed out as the UOL build upon "their discovery". Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure her contribution is known.

In addition, the part played by the Society, who commissioned and paid for the facial reconstruction, which would not have been done without their financial contribution. There is a risk here that the work done by Society members is being glossed over, especially by thoe who seek continually to denigrate the Society. They are very quick to point out the aspects of the Society they disapprove of without acknowledging the contribution it has made.
Elaine


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Arthurian wrote:
> >
> > I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
> > The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Given the fact that 4.9 million people watched that documentary and "hunchback" came from the mouth of a scientist, yes, it matters. The belated partial concession by her colleague that "hunchback" is not a scientific term was insufficient, and IIRC Lin Foxhall's important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis did not appear in the documentary. The problem, as I've said before, is that the "hunchback" myth is linked to other aspects of the Richard-as-villain myth, and those who dislike him will leap on the "fact" of the "hunchback" as "proof" that the rest of the tradition is not just Tudor propaganda (or other biased and contradictory sources, but it's highly unlikely that the average viewer of the documentary knows about Mancini or the Croyland Chronicle).
>
> Arthurian:
> >   On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found, 'As Richard was in the River'!!. 
> >
> > This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's certainly true that Richard )"I'll eat my hat") Buckley never expected to find Richard even when they found a skeleton almost immediately. Had he realized that Philippa knew what she was talking about--that Richard was recorded as having been buried in the choir of Greyfriars and that the discovery of his burial place was an extremely important find--he would perhaps have assigned a more experienced archaeologist to the dig. Meanwhile, Jo Appleby would have done well to have read up on the historical Richard in case it was him. It appears as if she and Philippa Langley failed to reach an understanding, to put it kindly. It's just possible that, had the cameras and microphones not been there, and had Philippa not been standing over her with obvious anxiety, Jo Appleby might have behaved in a more professional manner. I'm trying to think of a pair of similarly incompatible temperaments and points of view--maybe Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville with regard to Edward of Lancaster? I think it was impossible for them to understand each other.
>
> Carol
>

Carol earlier:
> > Thanks, Claire. For what it's worth, I only presented the shroud as an alternative explanation because of the similarly placed hands of another medieval skeleton excavated by the ULAS team at Sanvey Gate. The caption of that photo mentions nothing about possibly tied hands and states that the skeleton was probably wrapped in a shroud:

Claire responded:
> I didn't take it that the [Sanvey?] skeleton had its hands tied within the shroud, although I suppose it's a possibility in order to keep the position neat, in the same way that a corpse would probably have the jaw bound shut. I assumed the body had been laid out with the hands placed neatly together on the stomach and was then wrapped in the shroud, but the effect of pulling one bit of the shroud across to tighten it moved their arms to the side within the cloth, and perhaps also caused the ankles to cross.
>
> Richard must have been wrapped a bit more loosely, since his legs are laid out flat with space between them, but when they realised that the grave was too short and they had to bury him partly sitting, that might have caused an asymmetric tension on the bindings which moved his hands to the side, still together.

Carol responds:

Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind only a bit more detailed. I wasn't suggesting that you believed the Sanvey skeleton had its hands tied. I was saying that the position was similar to that of Richard's skeleton, yet the team arrived at opposite conclusions regarding a shroud for one but not the other and assumed that Richard's hands were tied but mentioned nothing of the sort for the similarly placed hands of the Sanvey skeleton. In essence, I think that what the team new about the treatment of Richard's body after Bosworth influenced their conclusions in a way that would not have happened had they discovered the same body without knowing or suspecting whose it was. They (not you) were apparently reasoning backwards just as Wright and Tanner did with the bones in the urn.

Carol

Elaine wrote:
>
> [snip] I've mentioned before the line the programme took and how their point of view was structured around the premise of a couple of amateurs, i.e. Phillipa and John AH with their lucky finds, which the programme makers reinforced. [snip]
>
> Another aspect is that the University is now promoting how they led and discovered the remains, see on their website "Meet the team who" etc. I feel that the contributions made by Phillipa and JAH, and the Richard III society, will be airbrushed out as the UOL build upon "their discovery". Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure her contribution is known. [snip]

Carol responds:

That's disturbing. It was bad enough that the Society members (not just Philippa but those on monitors in a short segment with Simon Farnaby) were depicted as emotional people with an unrealistic view of their idol, but now the society is getting no credit for coming up with the idea for the excavation in the first place?

I expect you're right that the Society members will be "airbrushed" out of the sequel to the documentary, but I had hoped that the reason would be a focus on the scientific aspects of the discovery, not self-promotion. I don't know what to think.

Carol

<snipped>
> Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure
>her contribution is known.

*** She is Elaine!! Philippa is co- writing it with Mike Jones of
Bosworth fame. It is to be published on October 2nd this year by John
Murray. the title is - The King's Grave - the Search for Richard
III.


http://www.hodder.co.uk/PressRelease/Richard+III.page

Jac

I was a bit dismayed at the Bosworth vistor center to see their new display write ups about the dig didnt give credit to the Richard III society or Phillipa is was as though the Uni did it all .I have been supporting the Bury Richard III in York petition but its very clear from lots of the comments that people believe the dig was initiated and funded purely by Leicester and the uni. Which is upsetting because a lot of work was put in by Phillipa and the society

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Elaine wrote:
> >
> > [snip] I've mentioned before the line the programme took and how their point of view was structured around the premise of a couple of amateurs, i.e. Phillipa and John AH with their lucky finds, which the programme makers reinforced. [snip]
> >
> > Another aspect is that the University is now promoting how they led and discovered the remains, see on their website "Meet the team who" etc. I feel that the contributions made by Phillipa and JAH, and the Richard III society, will be airbrushed out as the UOL build upon "their discovery". Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure her contribution is known. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's disturbing. It was bad enough that the Society members (not just Philippa but those on monitors in a short segment with Simon Farnaby) were depicted as emotional people with an unrealistic view of their idol, but now the society is getting no credit for coming up with the idea for the excavation in the first place?
>
> I expect you're right that the Society members will be "airbrushed" out of the sequel to the documentary, but I had hoped that the reason would be a focus on the scientific aspects of the discovery, not self-promotion. I don't know what to think.
>
> Carol
>

Oh Arthur, you did not distress me at all!  No one would even know my back was crooked unless I pointed it out.  I believe this may have been the case with Richard. I just don't like it when his scoliosis is described as hunchback.  LOL I guess I take it personally 
Vickie

From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: Burial

 
  Vickie, 
            I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.

  In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>
>Vickie
>
>From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>
>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>previously taken from a poor widow.
>
>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>
>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>
>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

LOL! I'm an accountant and a Ricardian!
Vickie

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 
Just to cheer you up I was having a conversation the other day with two people, neither of them history buffs or Ricardians in fact one was an accountant and they both said
 
a.  it was a really good programme
b. Jo Appleby was unkind, condescending and unreasonable
c. they felt for Philippa who they thought did a good job.
 
So perhaps the voice of common sense does reign out there - well that's if you include accountants.  H. 


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Cc: mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


 

On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
their leading lady!
Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I notice that the positions of the radiuses and ulnas (should that be radii and ulnae?) show that one palm was upward and the other downward and so not in the natural position that being shrouded, or falling whilst being enshrouded that one would expect. I think that rigor mortis cannot be an issue after 2 to 3 days in summer. It seems to me that they were tied.

If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?
 

________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:24
Subject: Re: Burial

 
When considering shrouds, Bodies in rigor, coffins etc, I wonder if bodies from the battle [Other than Richard's] found a resting place in the Grey friars on that post battle day.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur W.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:26
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>> I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were
>> tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team
>> found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side,
>> which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they
>> say nothing about tied hands:
>
>> http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll
>> down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)
>
>Hmm. That is pretty similar, isn't it? OK: if his hands are together like
>that because he was wrapped in a shroud, where does that take us?
>
>It removes the evidence for his being still in rigor when he was buried,
>which extends the possible interval between death and burial. In fact, it
>means he almost certainly *wasn't* still in rigor, otherwise the pressure of
>the cloth wouldn't have moved his hands into that position. So we then have
>no evidence of how he was tied across the horse, other than the fact that he
>was stabbed in the backside, which could have happened at any point or even
>have been a battle-wound where somebody tried to stab up under his armour -
>which, if so, he probably wouldn't have felt, because adrenalin is quite
>anaesthetic and he didn't live long enough for the adrenalin to wear off. I
>would expect them to try to kill him as far as possible without damaging his
>armour, because it would be very valuable if they could strip it off intact
>and sell it.
>
>For what it may be worth, I too have always had the impression that he was
>bound face-up.
>
>We no longer have the impression of haste created by his being buried in
>rigor. But then we can say that the grave is definitely too short, because
>if he was no longer in rigor he could had been laid out straight, and
>wasn't. So we still have that combination of haste - the too-short grave -
>and care - the important and laborious-to-achieve position and the shroud,
>which still suggests the friars doing their best for him as fast as
>possible, in case somebody stopped them, and that he was buried kindly.
>
>It also raises the possibility that that piece of metal is neither a weapon
>nor a relic but the remains of something (which could well be a nail or an
>arrow, if they were in an hurry and that was what was handy) used to pin the
>shroud closed.
>
>
>
>
>

No other person had the status that would have given him or her the right to be buried within the chapel and certainly not in the place of honor that R3 was found.

Other remains have been found but are believed to those of the friary's benefactor's. I am sure that monks would have been buried within the grounds of the friary , but I do not believe that they have been found in the very limited dig.

George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:31 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Burial





A lot are supposed to be buried in Dadlington churchyard.

________________________________
From: Arthurian lancastrian@... <mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:24
Subject: Re: Burial



When considering shrouds, Bodies in rigor, coffins etc, I wonder if bodies from the battle [Other than Richard's] found a resting place in the Grey friars on that post battle day.

Kind Regards,

Arthur W.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> >
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 20:26
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
>> I'm not sure about the hands, though. It's only speculation that they were
>> tied (or that he was buried without a shroud). Oddly, the Leicester team
>> found another skeleton at a different site with its hands to the side,
>> which they claimed must have been buried in a shroud and about which they
>> say nothing about tied hands:
>
>> http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html (Scroll
>> down to the photo of the skeleton and the caption.)
>
>Hmm. That is pretty similar, isn't it? OK: if his hands are together like
>that because he was wrapped in a shroud, where does that take us?
>
>It removes the evidence for his being still in rigor when he was buried,
>which extends the possible interval between death and burial. In fact, it
>means he almost certainly *wasn't* still in rigor, otherwise the pressure of
>the cloth wouldn't have moved his hands into that position. So we then have
>no evidence of how he was tied across the horse, other than the fact that he
>was stabbed in the backside, which could have happened at any point or even
>have been a battle-wound where somebody tried to stab up under his armour -
>which, if so, he probably wouldn't have felt, because adrenalin is quite
>anaesthetic and he didn't live long enough for the adrenalin to wear off. I
>would expect them to try to kill him as far as possible without damaging his
>armour, because it would be very valuable if they could strip it off intact
>and sell it.
>
>For what it may be worth, I too have always had the impression that he was
>bound face-up.
>
>We no longer have the impression of haste created by his being buried in
>rigor. But then we can say that the grave is definitely too short, because
>if he was no longer in rigor he could had been laid out straight, and
>wasn't. So we still have that combination of haste - the too-short grave -
>and care - the important and laborious-to-achieve position and the shroud,
>which still suggests the friars doing their best for him as fast as
>possible, in case somebody stopped them, and that he was buried kindly.
>
>It also raises the possibility that that piece of metal is neither a weapon
>nor a relic but the remains of something (which could well be a nail or an
>arrow, if they were in an hurry and that was what was handy) used to pin the
>shroud closed.
>
>
>
>
>

No, but..... It should be procedure now to note, date and catalogue everything.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Couldn't it just have been that it was all done in a great hurry and the friars hardly had time to sieve the earth? After all, it's not normal practice even now, is it? H


________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...<mailto:gbutterf1%40yahoo.com>>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:35
Subject: Re: Burial



So it was on top ?
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>> wrote:

> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>
> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
> convinced of.
>
>

Then I live in hope - so is my son in law!

--- In , Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...> wrote:
>
> LOL! I'm an accountant and a Ricardian!
> Vickie
>
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>  
> Just to cheer you up I was having a conversation the other day with two people, neither of them history buffs or Ricardians in fact one was an accountant and they both said
>  
> a.  it was a really good programme
> b. Jo Appleby was unkind, condescending and unreasonable
> c. they felt for Philippa who they thought did a good job.
>  
> So perhaps the voice of common sense does reign out there - well that's if you include accountants.  H. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Cc: mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
>  
>
> On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> > Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
> Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
> As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
> the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
> their leading lady!
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: RONALD COOKSLEY
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> I notice that the positions of the radiuses and ulnas (should that be
> radii and ulnae?) show that one palm was upward and the other downward and
> so not in the natural position that being shrouded, or falling whilst
> being enshrouded that one would expect. I think that rigor mortis cannot
> be an issue after 2 to 3 days in summer. It seems to me that they were
> tied.

Surely, his left hand is palm-down and his right hand is edge-on, not palm
up. And his hands are displaced towards the right hip, which means that his
right hand may be edge-on because it rotated as his arms were displaced
towards his right and his right elbow began to dip down at his side, while
his left elbow was on top of his torso and so not rotated.

RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
[snip]
> If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?

Carol responds:

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they were buried in their ordinary clothing, the answer is no. A shroud or winding sheet was a plain white cloth. Aside from the shroud of Turin, this photo is the closest I can find to the kind of shroud he would have been buried in if the monks had one available (ignore the clamps):

http://janefultonalt.blogspot.com/2010/10/stephen-althouse_24.html

If anyone has a better photo, please post. In any case, if you think of the way most people picture ghosts, at least in cartoons (sheeted figures with eyes), that conception is based on the shrouds they were buried in (though how the wrapped body looked, I don't know).

One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one available.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a
> place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one
> available.

And if they didn't have a shroud available, they could have used a blanket,
since he was only wee, or even sacking - they'd be bound to have *some*
length of cloth to keep him from the soil. And if his hands were bound, it
seems most unlikely that they would have buried him in a place of honour and
*not* cut the ties, so if his hands aren't together because he was shrouded,
we're back to rigor mortis.

Leicester University should realise there would not have been a dig at all without Philippa and John. They wouldn't have been able to identify Richard without all the work that John did on the mitdna. If I remember rightly the people who did the dig at the Battlefield tried to rubbish the research that Peter Foss and Michael K Jones had previously done. It is time that they recognised that Leicester has been handed a golden opportunity by these people and the Richard III Society and acknowledge their contribution properly.

--- In , "Lyn-Marie" <lyn.cunliffe@...> wrote:
>
>
> I was a bit dismayed at the Bosworth vistor center to see their new display write ups about the dig didnt give credit to the Richard III society or Phillipa is was as though the Uni did it all .I have been supporting the Bury Richard III in York petition but its very clear from lots of the comments that people believe the dig was initiated and funded purely by Leicester and the uni. Which is upsetting because a lot of work was put in by Phillipa and the society
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Elaine wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip] I've mentioned before the line the programme took and how their point of view was structured around the premise of a couple of amateurs, i.e. Phillipa and John AH with their lucky finds, which the programme makers reinforced. [snip]
> > >
> > > Another aspect is that the University is now promoting how they led and discovered the remains, see on their website "Meet the team who" etc. I feel that the contributions made by Phillipa and JAH, and the Richard III society, will be airbrushed out as the UOL build upon "their discovery". Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure her contribution is known. [snip]
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > That's disturbing. It was bad enough that the Society members (not just Philippa but those on monitors in a short segment with Simon Farnaby) were depicted as emotional people with an unrealistic view of their idol, but now the society is getting no credit for coming up with the idea for the excavation in the first place?
> >
> > I expect you're right that the Society members will be "airbrushed" out of the sequel to the documentary, but I had hoped that the reason would be a focus on the scientific aspects of the discovery, not self-promotion. I don't know what to think.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

Gosh, too bad they disapprove the Society......do not dislike the hand which feeds your coffers!!!

On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:07 PM, "ellrosa1452" <kathryn198@...<mailto:kathryn198@...>> wrote:



Carol & Arthur
In response to you remarks, I've mentioned before the line the programme took and how their point of view was structured around the premise of a couple of amateurs, i.e. Phillipa and John AH with their lucky finds, which the programme makers reinforced. At the conference earlier in the day, the UoL genealogist Professor Kevin Schýrer, (University's Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise) was stressing how the University, now in charge of the operation, led a genealogical study to verify the connection between Canadian-born furniture maker Michael Ibsen and Richard III and appeared to minimise JAH's contribution.

Another aspect is that the University is now promoting how they led and discovered the remains, see on their website "Meet the team who" etc. I feel that the contributions made by Phillipa and JAH, and the Richard III society, will be airbrushed out as the UOL build upon "their discovery". Phillipa might think about writing a book about the search to ensure her contribution is known.

In addition, the part played by the Society, who commissioned and paid for the facial reconstruction, which would not have been done without their financial contribution. There is a risk here that the work done by Society members is being glossed over, especially by thoe who seek continually to denigrate the Society. They are very quick to point out the aspects of the Society they disapprove of without acknowledging the contribution it has made.
Elaine

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> Arthurian wrote:
> >
> > I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??]ý
> > The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?.ý
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Given the fact that 4.9 million people watched that documentary and "hunchback" came from the mouth of a scientist, yes, it matters. The belated partial concession by her colleague that "hunchback" is not a scientific term was insufficient, and IIRC Lin Foxhall's important distinction between scoliosis and kyphosis did not appear in the documentary. The problem, as I've said before, is that the "hunchback" myth is linked to other aspects of the Richard-as-villain myth, and those who dislike him will leap on the "fact" of the "hunchback" as "proof" that the rest of the tradition is not just Tudor propaganda (or other biased and contradictory sources, but it's highly unlikely that the average viewer of the documentary knows about Mancini or the Croyland Chronicle).
>
> Arthurian:
> > ý On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found, 'As Richard was in the River'!!.ý
> >
> > This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> It's certainly true that Richard )"I'll eat my hat") Buckley never expected to find Richard even when they found a skeleton almost immediately. Had he realized that Philippa knew what she was talking about--that Richard was recorded as having been buried in the choir of Greyfriars and that the discovery of his burial place was an extremely important find--he would perhaps have assigned a more experienced archaeologist to the dig. Meanwhile, Jo Appleby would have done well to have read up on the historical Richard in case it was him. It appears as if she and Philippa Langley failed to reach an understanding, to put it kindly. It's just possible that, had the cameras and microphones not been there, and had Philippa not been standing over her with obvious anxiety, Jo Appleby might have behaved in a more professional manner. I'm trying to think of a pair of similarly incompatible temperaments and points of view--maybe Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville with regard to Edward of Lancaster? I think it was impossible for them to understand each other.
>
> Carol
>

That's a good point: she wouldn't be the first pro tossed into an overwhelming situation and told to StiffUpperLip it. I get the impression, though, that she is either somewhat socially challenged or otherwise estranged from the team--there was a little moment just after the announcement of the findings where Dr. Foxhall gave Dr. Schuerer a big bear hug, then turned to Dr. Appleby because fair's fair, and Dr. Appleby kind of acted like she'd been taken by surprise and didn't really wanna be huggin' nohow.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I think they are fair, Arthur. I doubt whether many believed that what perhaps started off as a sort of soap documentary on mad Ricardian woman's dig would yield gold. And it was staffed accordingly. H
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 12:31
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>  
>
> I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
> The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 
>
>   On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found,
> 'As Richard was in the River'!!. 
>
> This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [I saw a heavily staffed dig near Berkeley Castle on a similar T.V. programme recently & we are all familiar with 'Time Team' & 'Meet the Ancestors' on the box. 
>
>   NONE of these were so short of digging professionals as the Leicester/Richard dig appeared to be, this IN SPITE of the declared/ hoped for finding of such an historically important figure as Richard. 
>
>   Perhaps, in defence of Dr Jo Appleby, we need to take this low level of support on board?
> no doubt the full battalions of Leicester University 'Back Room Boys & Girls' will now bask in the light of this 'Sonne of Yorke'. 
>
> I DO Hope my comments are 'Fair'.
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> >To:
> >Cc: paul.bale@...
> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
> >Subject: Re: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> > 
> >On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
> >> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
> >Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
> >As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
> >the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
> >their leading lady!
> >Paul
> >
> >--
> >Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I had wanted to make a couple of comments about this, specifically because some of the detail is kind of getting away because, you know, it would have killed Channel 4 to PUT IT IN THE FREAKING DOCUMENTARY INSTEAD OF ONE MORE SHOT OF SIMON FARNABY SLOWLY GAINING ENLIGHTENM... I beg your pardon, I'll start again.

First off, one thing that isn't mentioned very often is that, before the dig ever even got approved, The RIII Society used part of their funding for what was described as "some desk work" at ULeic to review what Ms. Langley and Dr. Ashdown-Hill had proposed for the burial place. Dr. Buckley initially thought, "Uh-huh, suuuure he's there," but as the desk work went on, he began to see that the map evidence held together very well. In fact, he said he was the one who went to Ms. Langley to tell her, "I think you have something here."

Dr. Appleby's unfortunate moment with the pickaxe was on Day 2 of the exhumation, which was when they knew damn well that they had a skeleton, where it was, and what needed to be done to remove it safely. The first day, she worked with Dr. Turi King, the DNA expert; for some reason no one has explained, Dr. King wasn't there the second day, and it appears that Dr. Morris was at ground level documenting the findings while Dr. Appleby was in the hole rearranging them with her mattock.

The reason the skull wasn't where Dr. Appleby apparently expected to find it has everything to do with the brevity of the grave space; the original interment crew had to prop part of the king's neck and his skull onto a piece of wall. The wall is quite evident in video of the area. The skull being at a higher elevation isn't because of the curvature of the spine.

Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from a burial of that age, although that also means that they also don't have (and never will have) a definitive indication that the king's hands were tied. The idea that the king was buried in haste, but in a place of honor, seems borne out by what was found at the site.

Rigor mortis would long since have passed if the interment took place any longer than a day after the king's death. (Of course, other processes might have contributed to a rigidity of posture, but I won't go into detail.) The king's legs were straight and laid out parallel to one another, so it doesn't look as though the foot end of the grave was a challenge; it seems as though the real problem was fitting the upper part of the king's torso around, you know, that wall. It might be that there was more than a belowground obstruction right there, like, say, one of the choir stalls or something they had to work around.

All in all, as grisly as this is, it's hardly the worst burial of an English monarch that you might imagine. I wouldn't look up William the Conqueror's burial anywhere near dinnertime, for example.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> > I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
> close to the surface
>
> With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
> grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.
>
> > and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
> mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
>
> And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
> with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
> higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
> of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
> probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
> were propped forwards a bit.
>
> [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
> he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
> rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
> hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
> better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]
>
> It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
> still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
> there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
> of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
> she probably feels quite bad enough already.
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Burial


> Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no
> tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find
> the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from
> a burial of that age,

Well that's not really surprising, is it, considering the speed with which
the earth seems to have been peeled off? To find minute traces of fibre,
you have to actually look for them.

His hands cannot have been still tied, unless it was extremely loosely,
because if his hands were tied then his wrists would be together, either
palms-together in a prayer-like position, or crosed over at the wrist.
Instead, he appears to be clasping his right wrist in his left hand.

Sorry I meant with normal burials, not archaeological digs. This is a very old message. I think Yahoo was having hiccups last night.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 16:05
Subject: Re: Burial

 

No, but..... It should be procedure now to note, date and catalogue everything.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@...@...>> wrote:

Couldn't it just have been that it was all done in a great hurry and the friars hardly had time to sieve the earth? After all, it's not normal practice even now, is it? H

________________________________
From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
To: "" >
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:35
Subject: Re: Burial

So it was on top ?
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
> George
>
> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>
> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
> convinced of.
>
>

Doesn't rigor mortis subside between 48 and 60 hours - surely Richard was unburied for longer than this?



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a
> place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one
> available.

And if they didn't have a shroud available, they could have used a blanket,
since he was only wee, or even sacking - they'd be bound to have *some*
length of cloth to keep him from the soil. And if his hands were bound, it
seems most unlikely that they would have buried him in a place of honour and
*not* cut the ties, so if his hands aren't together because he was shrouded,
we're back to rigor mortis.

Thanks so much for this. Certainly I had't picked up the bit about the wall at the head end, just thought it was a hasty burial. Glad you agree about the rigor mortis too.  And H8's wasn't too pleasant either, was it?  H



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 1:25
Subject: Re: Burial

 

I had wanted to make a couple of comments about this, specifically because some of the detail is kind of getting away because, you know, it would have killed Channel 4 to PUT IT IN THE FREAKING DOCUMENTARY INSTEAD OF ONE MORE SHOT OF SIMON FARNABY SLOWLY GAINING ENLIGHTENM... I beg your pardon, I'll start again.

First off, one thing that isn't mentioned very often is that, before the dig ever even got approved, The RIII Society used part of their funding for what was described as "some desk work" at ULeic to review what Ms. Langley and Dr. Ashdown-Hill had proposed for the burial place. Dr. Buckley initially thought, "Uh-huh, suuuure he's there," but as the desk work went on, he began to see that the map evidence held together very well. In fact, he said he was the one who went to Ms. Langley to tell her, "I think you have something here."

Dr. Appleby's unfortunate moment with the pickaxe was on Day 2 of the exhumation, which was when they knew damn well that they had a skeleton, where it was, and what needed to be done to remove it safely. The first day, she worked with Dr. Turi King, the DNA expert; for some reason no one has explained, Dr. King wasn't there the second day, and it appears that Dr. Morris was at ground level documenting the findings while Dr. Appleby was in the hole rearranging them with her mattock.

The reason the skull wasn't where Dr. Appleby apparently expected to find it has everything to do with the brevity of the grave space; the original interment crew had to prop part of the king's neck and his skull onto a piece of wall. The wall is quite evident in video of the area. The skull being at a higher elevation isn't because of the curvature of the spine.

Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from a burial of that age, although that also means that they also don't have (and never will have) a definitive indication that the king's hands were tied. The idea that the king was buried in haste, but in a place of honor, seems borne out by what was found at the site.

Rigor mortis would long since have passed if the interment took place any longer than a day after the king's death. (Of course, other processes might have contributed to a rigidity of posture, but I won't go into detail.) The king's legs were straight and laid out parallel to one another, so it doesn't look as though the foot end of the grave was a challenge; it seems as though the real problem was fitting the upper part of the king's torso around, you know, that wall. It might be that there was more than a belowground obstruction right there, like, say, one of the choir stalls or something they had to work around.

All in all, as grisly as this is, it's hardly the worst burial of an English monarch that you might imagine. I wouldn't look up William the Conqueror's burial anywhere near dinnertime, for example.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> > I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
> close to the surface
>
> With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
> grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.
>
> > and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
> mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
>
> And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
> with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
> higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
> of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
> probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
> were propped forwards a bit.
>
> [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
> he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
> rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
> hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
> better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]
>
> It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
> still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
> there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
> of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
> she probably feels quite bad enough already.
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


> Doesn't rigor mortis subside between 48 and 60 hours - surely Richard was
> unburied for longer than this?

He was taken into Leicester - let's say six hours, since they probably
weren't going very fast - and then displayed for two days, but we don't know
whether that means a full two days or just e.g. from Monday until some time
on Wednesday morning (I don't remember what day of the week the battle was
so this is just a fr'instance!). So he was buried probably between about 46
and 54 hours after death.

See McJohn's post



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 9:48
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

> Doesn't rigor mortis subside between 48 and 60 hours - surely Richard was
> unburied for longer than this?

He was taken into Leicester - let's say six hours, since they probably
weren't going very fast - and then displayed for two days, but we don't know
whether that means a full two days or just e.g. from Monday until some time
on Wednesday morning (I don't remember what day of the week the battle was
so this is just a fr'instance!). So he was buried probably between about 46
and 54 hours after death.

There are PLENTY of 'Shroud Brasses' available from this era which offer at least a clue.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:29
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>
>
>RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
>[snip]
>> If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they were buried in their ordinary clothing, the answer is no. A shroud or winding sheet was a plain white cloth. Aside from the shroud of Turin, this photo is the closest I can find to the kind of shroud he would have been buried in if the monks had one available (ignore the clamps):
>
>http://janefultonalt.blogspot.com/2010/10/stephen-althouse_24.html
>
>If anyone has a better photo, please post. In any case, if you think of the way most people picture ghosts, at least in cartoons (sheeted figures with eyes), that conception is based on the shrouds they were buried in (though how the wrapped body looked, I don't know).
>
>One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one available.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

  A RECENT programme about the Leper Hospital Burials at Winchester, CLEARLY Shows [Although corpses were buried with respect] the head was higher than the chest. [Perhaps awaiting 'Resurrection'?] Seems reasonable that this was a common enough practice to have been the case with Richard.
[Not the Grave too short.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.
Perhaps common enough to have been expected & avoided skull damage in Leicester?.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 9:30
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>Thanks so much for this. Certainly I had't picked up the bit about the wall at the head end, just thought it was a hasty burial. Glad you agree about the rigor mortis too.  And H8's wasn't too pleasant either, was it?  H
>
>________________________________
>From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 1:25
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>
>I had wanted to make a couple of comments about this, specifically because some of the detail is kind of getting away because, you know, it would have killed Channel 4 to PUT IT IN THE FREAKING DOCUMENTARY INSTEAD OF ONE MORE SHOT OF SIMON FARNABY SLOWLY GAINING ENLIGHTENM... I beg your pardon, I'll start again.
>
>First off, one thing that isn't mentioned very often is that, before the dig ever even got approved, The RIII Society used part of their funding for what was described as "some desk work" at ULeic to review what Ms. Langley and Dr. Ashdown-Hill had proposed for the burial place. Dr. Buckley initially thought, "Uh-huh, suuuure he's there," but as the desk work went on, he began to see that the map evidence held together very well. In fact, he said he was the one who went to Ms. Langley to tell her, "I think you have something here."
>
>Dr. Appleby's unfortunate moment with the pickaxe was on Day 2 of the exhumation, which was when they knew damn well that they had a skeleton, where it was, and what needed to be done to remove it safely. The first day, she worked with Dr. Turi King, the DNA expert; for some reason no one has explained, Dr. King wasn't there the second day, and it appears that Dr. Morris was at ground level documenting the findings while Dr. Appleby was in the hole rearranging them with her mattock.
>
>The reason the skull wasn't where Dr. Appleby apparently expected to find it has everything to do with the brevity of the grave space; the original interment crew had to prop part of the king's neck and his skull onto a piece of wall. The wall is quite evident in video of the area. The skull being at a higher elevation isn't because of the curvature of the spine.
>
>Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from a burial of that age, although that also means that they also don't have (and never will have) a definitive indication that the king's hands were tied. The idea that the king was buried in haste, but in a place of honor, seems borne out by what was found at the site.
>
>Rigor mortis would long since have passed if the interment took place any longer than a day after the king's death. (Of course, other processes might have contributed to a rigidity of posture, but I won't go into detail.) The king's legs were straight and laid out parallel to one another, so it doesn't look as though the foot end of the grave was a challenge; it seems as though the real problem was fitting the upper part of the king's torso around, you know, that wall. It might be that there was more than a belowground obstruction right there, like, say, one of the choir stalls or something they had to work around.
>
>All in all, as grisly as this is, it's hardly the worst burial of an English monarch that you might imagine. I wouldn't look up William the Conqueror's burial anywhere near dinnertime, for example.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> > I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
>> close to the surface
>>
>> With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
>> grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.
>>
>> > and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
>> mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
>>
>> And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
>> with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
>> higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
>> of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
>> probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
>> were propped forwards a bit.
>>
>> [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
>> he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
>> rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
>> hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
>> better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]
>>
>> It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
>> still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
>> there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
>> of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
>> she probably feels quite bad enough already.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  Since writing I viewed the Winchester Leper Hospital Dig on T.V. ALL of the skeletal heads were HIGHER than the chests and expected thus by the Archaeologists on site. As a result NO damage occurred to the most important bit [The Skull]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 0:57
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>That's a good point: she wouldn't be the first pro tossed into an overwhelming situation and told to StiffUpperLip it. I get the impression, though, that she is either somewhat socially challenged or otherwise estranged from the team--there was a little moment just after the announcement of the findings where Dr. Foxhall gave Dr. Schuerer a big bear hug, then turned to Dr. Appleby because fair's fair, and Dr. Appleby kind of acted like she'd been taken by surprise and didn't really wanna be huggin' nohow.
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>>
>> I think they are fair, Arthur. I doubt whether many believed that what perhaps started off as a sort of soap documentary on mad Ricardian woman's dig would yield gold. And it was staffed accordingly. H
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Arthurian
>> To: "" >
>> Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 12:31
>> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>>
>>  
>>
>> I was more 'irritated' by Dr. Appleby's heavy handed use of the 'Mattock' [Sticks & Stones - And Mattocks? - will break my bones??] 
>> The verbal abuse / unpleasant terminologies have after ALL been heaped on Richard for centuries, does one more matter?. 
>>
>>   On deeper reflection on the exhumation however, it appears to me that perhaps the 'Internal Politics' & resultant apparent low input from her Leicester colleagues [Who perhaps NEVER BELIEVED the Richard III Society sponsored search would result in more than a few floor tiles being found,
>> 'As Richard was in the River'!!. 
>>
>> This meant that poor Appleby was left to do more than was reasonable. [I saw a heavily staffed dig near Berkeley Castle on a similar T.V. programme recently & we are all familiar with 'Time Team' & 'Meet the Ancestors' on the box. 
>>
>>   NONE of these were so short of digging professionals as the Leicester/Richard dig appeared to be, this IN SPITE of the declared/ hoped for finding of such an historically important figure as Richard. 
>>
>>   Perhaps, in defence of Dr Jo Appleby, we need to take this low level of support on board?
>> no doubt the full battalions of Leicester University 'Back Room Boys & Girls' will now bask in the light of this 'Sonne of Yorke'. 
>>
>> I DO Hope my comments are 'Fair'.
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
>> >To:
>> >Cc: paul.bale@...
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 21:17
>> >Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >On 19/02/2013 20:41, justcarol67 wrote:
>> >> Clearly, Jo Appleby had no idea of the damage she would do with her unscientific terminology. And no wonder Annette Carson wanted nothing to do with that documentary.
>> >Didn't Jo realise? I wonder.
>> >As for Annette I think her decision may also have been made when she saw
>> >the way the film makers were zoning in on the crying and emoting of
>> >their leading lady!
>> >Paul
>> >
>> >--
>> >Richard Liveth Yet!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Since writing I viewed the Winchester Leper Hospital Dig on T.V. ALL of the skeletal heads were HIGHER than the chests and expected thus by the Archaeologists on site. As a result NO damage occurred to the most important bit [The Skull] Was this to do with Resurrection? whatever the reason a common last resting posture. The current programme about the East End undertakers Thos. Cribb shows modern practice elevating the head. [They appear to use paper from a shredder.] 

In burials from earlier days without coffins shaping the grave seems to be a practice which can make the grave appear truncated but raises the Skull.  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 1:25
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>I had wanted to make a couple of comments about this, specifically because some of the detail is kind of getting away because, you know, it would have killed Channel 4 to PUT IT IN THE FREAKING DOCUMENTARY INSTEAD OF ONE MORE SHOT OF SIMON FARNABY SLOWLY GAINING ENLIGHTENM... I beg your pardon, I'll start again.
>
>First off, one thing that isn't mentioned very often is that, before the dig ever even got approved, The RIII Society used part of their funding for what was described as "some desk work" at ULeic to review what Ms. Langley and Dr. Ashdown-Hill had proposed for the burial place. Dr. Buckley initially thought, "Uh-huh, suuuure he's there," but as the desk work went on, he began to see that the map evidence held together very well. In fact, he said he was the one who went to Ms. Langley to tell her, "I think you have something here."
>
>Dr. Appleby's unfortunate moment with the pickaxe was on Day 2 of the exhumation, which was when they knew damn well that they had a skeleton, where it was, and what needed to be done to remove it safely. The first day, she worked with Dr. Turi King, the DNA expert; for some reason no one has explained, Dr. King wasn't there the second day, and it appears that Dr. Morris was at ground level documenting the findings while Dr. Appleby was in the hole rearranging them with her mattock.
>
>The reason the skull wasn't where Dr. Appleby apparently expected to find it has everything to do with the brevity of the grave space; the original interment crew had to prop part of the king's neck and his skull onto a piece of wall. The wall is quite evident in video of the area. The skull being at a higher elevation isn't because of the curvature of the spine.
>
>Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from a burial of that age, although that also means that they also don't have (and never will have) a definitive indication that the king's hands were tied. The idea that the king was buried in haste, but in a place of honor, seems borne out by what was found at the site.
>
>Rigor mortis would long since have passed if the interment took place any longer than a day after the king's death. (Of course, other processes might have contributed to a rigidity of posture, but I won't go into detail.) The king's legs were straight and laid out parallel to one another, so it doesn't look as though the foot end of the grave was a challenge; it seems as though the real problem was fitting the upper part of the king's torso around, you know, that wall. It might be that there was more than a belowground obstruction right there, like, say, one of the choir stalls or something they had to work around.
>
>All in all, as grisly as this is, it's hardly the worst burial of an English monarch that you might imagine. I wouldn't look up William the Conqueror's burial anywhere near dinnertime, for example.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> > I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
>> close to the surface
>>
>> With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
>> grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.
>>
>> > and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
>> mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
>>
>> And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
>> with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
>> higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
>> of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
>> probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
>> were propped forwards a bit.
>>
>> [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
>> he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
>> rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
>> hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
>> better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]
>>
>> It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
>> still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
>> there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
>> of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
>> she probably feels quite bad enough already.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

  Tying up of the Jaw was a practice until recent years still continued from at LEAST early Victorian times, more recently Nurses performing the last offices prop a pillow under the Jaw as tying can cause bruising. I understand embalmers now insert a suture to keep the mouth closed.

  Bodies tend to hold the posture given pre-rigor setting in.

  I must try to look up some Shroud Brasses to see if 1484 practices are apparent. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 2:35
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>From: mcjohn_wt_net
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 1:25 AM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>> Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no
>> tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find
>> the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from
>> a burial of that age,
>
>Well that's not really surprising, is it, considering the speed with which
>the earth seems to have been peeled off? To find minute traces of fibre,
>you have to actually look for them.
>
>His hands cannot have been still tied, unless it was extremely loosely,
>because if his hands were tied then his wrists would be together, either
>palms-together in a prayer-like position, or crosed over at the wrist.
>Instead, he appears to be clasping his right wrist in his left hand.
>
>
>
>
>

Interesting! (like your comment)



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 11:36
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 

  A RECENT programme about the Leper Hospital Burials at Winchester, CLEARLY Shows [Although corpses were buried with respect] the head was higher than the chest. [Perhaps awaiting 'Resurrection'?] Seems reasonable that this was a common enough practice to have been the case with Richard.
[Not the Grave too short.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.
Perhaps common enough to have been expected & avoided skull damage in Leicester?.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 9:30
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>Thanks so much for this. Certainly I had't picked up the bit about the wall at the head end, just thought it was a hasty burial. Glad you agree about the rigor mortis too.  And H8's wasn't too pleasant either, was it?  H
>
>________________________________
>From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 1:25
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>
>I had wanted to make a couple of comments about this, specifically because some of the detail is kind of getting away because, you know, it would have killed Channel 4 to PUT IT IN THE FREAKING DOCUMENTARY INSTEAD OF ONE MORE SHOT OF SIMON FARNABY SLOWLY GAINING ENLIGHTENM... I beg your pardon, I'll start again.
>
>First off, one thing that isn't mentioned very often is that, before the dig ever even got approved, The RIII Society used part of their funding for what was described as "some desk work" at ULeic to review what Ms. Langley and Dr. Ashdown-Hill had proposed for the burial place. Dr. Buckley initially thought, "Uh-huh, suuuure he's there," but as the desk work went on, he began to see that the map evidence held together very well. In fact, he said he was the one who went to Ms. Langley to tell her, "I think you have something here."
>
>Dr. Appleby's unfortunate moment with the pickaxe was on Day 2 of the exhumation, which was when they knew damn well that they had a skeleton, where it was, and what needed to be done to remove it safely. The first day, she worked with Dr. Turi King, the DNA expert; for some reason no one has explained, Dr. King wasn't there the second day, and it appears that Dr. Morris was at ground level documenting the findings while Dr. Appleby was in the hole rearranging them with her mattock.
>
>The reason the skull wasn't where Dr. Appleby apparently expected to find it has everything to do with the brevity of the grave space; the original interment crew had to prop part of the king's neck and his skull onto a piece of wall. The wall is quite evident in video of the area. The skull being at a higher elevation isn't because of the curvature of the spine.
>
>Also, the team seems exceptionally convinced that there was no shroud, no tying up of the jaw, no grave goods--nothing like that. They didn't find the slightest evidence of fiber remnants of the type one would expect from a burial of that age, although that also means that they also don't have (and never will have) a definitive indication that the king's hands were tied. The idea that the king was buried in haste, but in a place of honor, seems borne out by what was found at the site.
>
>Rigor mortis would long since have passed if the interment took place any longer than a day after the king's death. (Of course, other processes might have contributed to a rigidity of posture, but I won't go into detail.) The king's legs were straight and laid out parallel to one another, so it doesn't look as though the foot end of the grave was a challenge; it seems as though the real problem was fitting the upper part of the king's torso around, you know, that wall. It might be that there was more than a belowground obstruction right there, like, say, one of the choir stalls or something they had to work around.
>
>All in all, as grisly as this is, it's hardly the worst burial of an English monarch that you might imagine. I wouldn't look up William the Conqueror's burial anywhere near dinnertime, for example.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> > I believe it was Claire who mentioned that the skeleton was found fairly
>> close to the surface
>>
>> With reference to the positon of the nail, yes - I think the bottom of the
>> grave is about 30" deep although it's hard to be sure.
>>
>> > and that Appleby's rather indiscriminate use of the
>> mattock was because she simply didn't expect to find anything at that level?
>>
>> And because, as she herself said, she was expecting him to be laid out flat
>> with his skull at the same level as his legs, and instead it was much
>> higher. Seeing the scoliosis she then assumed that the bent-forward posture
>> of his body was due to his having a "hunchback" although in fact it was
>> probably due to the grave being too short, so that his head and shoulders
>> were propped forwards a bit.
>>
>> [Due to his wrists being close together as if tied I thought at first that
>> he had gone into rigor while bent forwards over the horse and was still in
>> rigor when he was buried, but I think Carol's explanation that his
>> hands-together position is due to being tightly wrapped in a shroud is
>> better than mine, so the bent-forwards posture needs another explanation.]
>>
>> It was understandable that Appleby expected his skull to be lower down, but
>> still careless - people are often buried stacked up so for all she knew
>> there could have been another body above the one she was looking at the legs
>> of. Imo she was a clumsy mare, but it's unkind to rub it in too much, as
>> she probably feels quite bad enough already.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes, then other factors come into play especially if he had been left in the open for 2 days in a hot / warm environment

Prior to burial



George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Hilary Jones
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 4:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Burial





Doesn't rigor mortis subside between 48 and 60 hours - surely Richard was unburied for longer than this?

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@... <mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com> >
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: Re: Burial



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: Burial

> One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a
> place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one
> available.

And if they didn't have a shroud available, they could have used a blanket,
since he was only wee, or even sacking - they'd be bound to have *some*
length of cloth to keep him from the soil. And if his hands were bound, it
seems most unlikely that they would have buried him in a place of honour and
*not* cut the ties, so if his hands aren't together because he was shrouded,
we're back to rigor mortis.

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> I had a 35 year career in forensic psychiatric nursing. At the beginning in 1964/65 terms like 'Idiot', 'Imbecile', 'Cretin' and 'Spastic' were ALL in common usage, these disappeared over the years as more [Kinder?] 'Politically Correct' terms emerged. 'Hunchback' was probably a similar term, though still used in earlier years. 
>
> Slightly later but perhaps more related to make the point was the ceremony of 'Riding the Black Lad' in which an effigy of a knight in black armour was paraded around Middleton in Lancashire.
>
>   This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.


Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's Lord Constable. There are other candidates for the original 'Black Lad' http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/54225/.
My own suspicion is that this was an ancient tradition with pagan origins which after the Reformation needed a new explanation since such things were disapproved of by the Puritans. Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
Marie





>
>   Several attempts to continue the tradition have involved trying to 'Change the name' to make it sound less aimed at ethnic minorities [Which it never was!! - Unless Sir Ralph as a latter-day 'Knight of the Shires' was one.]
>
>   Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]    
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur W.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 21:42
> >Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> > 
> >carole hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it not time to stop calling Dr Appleby Dr Ooops. It is coming across as disrespectful. Yes she called Richard a Hunchback when first discribing him. I think she was excited that the skeleton was him and she was telling Philippa something that would convey the fact. 
> >>
> >> Carole
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >That might be the case except that she continued to refer to him as a "hunchback" and was only partially corrected by a colleague, who admitted that "hunchback" was not a scientific term. Possibly, she was reprimanded for her careless and unscientific language by Lin Foxhall, who carefully distinguished between kyphosis ("hunchback") and scoliosis but got very little time in the documentary. Certainly, Jo Appleby (clearly a junior member of the team) was more careful during the press conference. However, Oops Appleby refers to another slip, not of the tongue but of the mattock, which resulted in damage to the most valuable skull she is likely ever to excavate.
> >
> >Your feelings are understandable, but it would be nice if you had a bit of tolerance for ours. Calling her Oops Appleby on this forum is a harmless outlet for our frustration over her unprofessional behavior on more than one occasion. Her use of the term "hunchback" did a great deal of irremediable damage whereas it's highly unlikely that our admittedly disrespectful remarks will in any way damage her career prospects. (That slip of the mattock and her unscientific language might do so, however.)
> >
> >BTW, there are two Carols and another Carole on this forum. I haven't felt this "caroled" since first grade!
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:07 PM
Subject: Re: Burial


> My own suspicion is that this was an ancient tradition with pagan origins
> which after the Reformation needed a new explanation since such things
> were disapproved of by the Puritans. Pagan religion revolved around two
> rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun
> king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.

Yes, and the corn-cockle business makes him sound exactly like some sort of
symbol of winter doing war with summer. But he does seem to haver had a
dark reputation in his own right, since there's that "save us ... from Sir
Ralph de Assheton" rhyme.

Wiki has him entitled to act as judge and jury in emergencies, meaning that
he may have been feared simply in a "save us from the law" sense. Also I
came across a reference (don't recall what) that he had a brother who was an
alchemist, and combining that with dressing in black suggests that his
sinister reputation came about in part because people thought, rightly or
wrongly, that he was a ritual magician or a witch (which is a gender-neutral
term in the circles I move in) - and the dressing in black also suggests he
may have been a poseur who played up to that.

This book Traditions of Lancashire by John Roby

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WQM-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=%22ralph+assheton%22+%22black+knight%22&source=bl&ots=0Kf1O40J9J&sig=1pCuv1rQGZyiY3J7knvVnuHFvqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yxQgUdWZHKaC4ATolYDQDQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20assheton%22%20%22black%20knight%22&f=false

has a long section on Assheton, ps 162-175 which portrays him as a villain
but ultimately shows him behaving quite well and refunding a poor widow's
death duties, albeit only when embarassed into it, and also suggests that
the original Black Lad was his father.

The book was published in 1829 and is painting a hostile portrait of
Assheton, yet it makes no mention of executions and spiked barrels, only of
harsh taxation, which suggests that the idea of Assheton as murderously
cruel is a recent addition.

Marie wrote:
> Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's Lord Constable. [snip]

Carol responds:

I thought that Richard made Lord Stanley constable after Buckingham's execution.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Burial

> I thought that Richard made Lord Stanley constable after Buckingham's
> execution.

Assheton was Vice-Constable I think.

I haven't got the energy to trail back looking for the post about leper burials, but it's just occurred to me that bodies at a leper hospital might have been buried in a semi-sitting position just to save space, on the assumption that they were going to have an awful lot of bodies to fit into their graveyard, rather than for some ritual reason.

Thank you for all the information about the appearance of shrouds. I am well aware of same having already ordered mine!

My point was that because the Franciscans were a mendicant order, I would assume that like some other orders they were buried in their (one and only) habit and therefore might not have suitable spare material. I accept someone's earlier suggestion that they would at least have had sacking at their disposal.
However I am now of the opinion that he would have been shrouded, however poorly, and mattocks don't tend to produce minute fibres!  Hopefully the earth under his body was minutely excavated and studied and the Uni's premature(?) announcement that there was no sign of a shroud will be overturned with further and better examination.
 
 

________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 11:08
Subject: Re: Re: Burial

 
There are PLENTY of 'Shroud Brasses' available from this era which offer at least a clue.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:29
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>
>
>RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
>[snip]
>> If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they were buried in their ordinary clothing, the answer is no. A shroud or winding sheet was a plain white cloth. Aside from the shroud of Turin, this photo is the closest I can find to the kind of shroud he would have been buried in if the monks had one available (ignore the clamps):
>
>http://janefultonalt.blogspot.com/2010/10/stephen-althouse_24.html
>
>If anyone has a better photo, please post. In any case, if you think of the way most people picture ghosts, at least in cartoons (sheeted figures with eyes), that conception is based on the shrouds they were buried in (though how the wrapped body looked, I don't know).
>
>One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one available.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: RONALD COOKSLEY
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


> My point was that because the Franciscans were a mendicant order, I would
> assume that like some other orders they were buried in their (one and
> only) habit and therefore might not have suitable spare material. I accept
> someone's earlier suggestion that they would at least have had sacking at
> their disposal.

'twas me. And it's just occurred to me that perhaps the fact that his hands
are together in the manner of the Sangate shroud burial, and yet his legs
are laid out straight and slightly apart, means that they didn't have enough
cloth to wrap him completely and so they settled for wrapping his head and
torso in e.g. a blanket or sacking, and had to leave his feet bare.

Doesn't the discovery of shroud material depend upon many factors,

Type of soil i.e. Acidic / alkaline

Conditions Wet /Dry/ airtight/ permeable

Type of material wool/ silk/ hemp ( any organic material will decay under normal circumstances )

The lack of a shroud or cover does not mean that he was not covered only that traces have not been found. By now I am sure that a full spectral analysis of the soil in the immediate area of R3's remains has been done however while looking for trace elements in soil it is very hit and miss due to contamination from the surrounding area into the site ( remember the grave had been disturbed by a Victorian outhouse, so far I have not heard if this was connected to a sewer system)

My general feeling is that this grave may have been dug by the friars but his body was roughly dumped into it by Henry's men and refilled without much or any ceremony.



George



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of RONALD COOKSLEY
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Burial





Thank you for all the information about the appearance of shrouds. I am well aware of same having already ordered mine!

My point was that because the Franciscans were a mendicant order, I would assume that like some other orders they were buried in their (one and only) habit and therefore might not have suitable spare material. I accept someone's earlier suggestion that they would at least have had sacking at their disposal.
However I am now of the opinion that he would have been shrouded, however poorly, and mattocks don't tend to produce minute fibres! Hopefully the earth under his body was minutely excavated and studied and the Uni's premature(?) announcement that there was no sign of a shroud will be overturned with further and better examination.



________________________________
From: Arthurian lancastrian@... <mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com> >
To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 11:08
Subject: Re: Re: Burial


There are PLENTY of 'Shroud Brasses' available from this era which offer at least a clue.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:29
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
>
>
>
>RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
>[snip]
>> If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they were buried in their ordinary clothing, the answer is no. A shroud or winding sheet was a plain white cloth. Aside from the shroud of Turin, this photo is the closest I can find to the kind of shroud he would have been buried in if the monks had one available (ignore the clamps):
>
>http://janefultonalt.blogspot.com/2010/10/stephen-althouse_24.html
>
>If anyone has a better photo, please post. In any case, if you think of the way most people picture ghosts, at least in cartoons (sheeted figures with eyes), that conception is based on the shrouds they were buried in (though how the wrapped body looked, I don't know).
>
>One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one available.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I wonder if we're going to hear more about fiber evidence during the March 2 conference. Take good notes, you guys! We'll want to know EVERYTHING!

--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Doesn’t the discovery of shroud material depend upon many factors,
>
> Type of soil i.e. Acidic / alkaline
>
> Conditions Wet /Dry/ airtight/ permeable
>
> Type of material wool/ silk/ hemp ( any organic material will decay under normal circumstances )
>
> The lack of a shroud or cover does not mean that he was not covered only that traces have not been found. By now I am sure that a full spectral analysis of the soil in the immediate area of R3’s remains has been done however while looking for trace elements in soil it is very hit and miss due to contamination from the surrounding area into the site ( remember the grave had been disturbed by a Victorian outhouse, so far I have not heard if this was connected to a sewer system)
>
> My general feeling is that this grave may have been dug by the friars but his body was roughly dumped into it by Henry’s men and refilled without much or any ceremony.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of RONALD COOKSLEY
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 10:33 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you for all the information about the appearance of shrouds. I am well aware of same having already ordered mine!
>
> My point was that because the Franciscans were a mendicant order, I would assume that like some other orders they were buried in their (one and only) habit and therefore might not have suitable spare material. I accept someone's earlier suggestion that they would at least have had sacking at their disposal.
> However I am now of the opinion that he would have been shrouded, however poorly, and mattocks don't tend to produce minute fibres! Hopefully the earth under his body was minutely excavated and studied and the Uni's premature(?) announcement that there was no sign of a shroud will be overturned with further and better examination.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian lancastrian@... <mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com> >
> To: " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> " <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Sent: Thursday, 21 February 2013, 11:08
> Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> There are PLENTY of 'Shroud Brasses' available from this era which offer at least a clue.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> >To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 22:29
> >Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> If its true that the Greyfriars were in genuinely poverty, then 'spare' shrouds would not be immediately to hand. Weren't there 'costumes' in life their shrouds in death?
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >I'm not quite sure what you're asking. If you're asking if they were buried in their ordinary clothing, the answer is no. A shroud or winding sheet was a plain white cloth. Aside from the shroud of Turin, this photo is the closest I can find to the kind of shroud he would have been buried in if the monks had one available (ignore the clamps):
> >
> >http://janefultonalt.blogspot.com/2010/10/stephen-althouse_24.html
> >
> >If anyone has a better photo, please post. In any case, if you think of the way most people picture ghosts, at least in cartoons (sheeted figures with eyes), that conception is based on the shrouds they were buried in (though how the wrapped body looked, I don't know).
> >
> >One thing I'm almost certain about: since the friars buried Richard in a place of honor, they would have provided a shroud for him if they had one available.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> > My own suspicion is that this was an ancient tradition with pagan origins
> > which after the Reformation needed a new explanation since such things
> > were disapproved of by the Puritans. Pagan religion revolved around two
> > rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun
> > king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
>
> Yes, and the corn-cockle business makes him sound exactly like some sort of
> symbol of winter doing war with summer. But he does seem to haver had a
> dark reputation in his own right, since there's that "save us ... from Sir
> Ralph de Assheton" rhyme.


Marie asks:
What is the earliest known date of this Sir Ralph de Assheton rhyme? I would suggest that in order for him to do service as the Black Lad in later times it was enough that he had been Ricghard's Lord Constable - a man with summary powers of execution.

>
> Wiki has him entitled to act as judge and jury in emergencies, meaning that
> he may have been feared simply in a "save us from the law" sense. Also I
> came across a reference (don't recall what) that he had a brother who was an
> alchemist, and combining that with dressing in black suggests that his
> sinister reputation came about in part because people thought, rightly or
> wrongly, that he was a ritual magician or a witch (which is a gender-neutral
> term in the circles I move in) - and the dressing in black also suggests he
> may have been a poseur who played up to that.
>
> This book Traditions of Lancashire by John Roby
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WQM-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=%22ralph+assheton%22+%22black+knight%22&source=bl&ots=0Kf1O40J9J&sig=1pCuv1rQGZyiY3J7knvVnuHFvqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yxQgUdWZHKaC4ATolYDQDQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20assheton%22%20%22black%20knight%22&f=false
>
> has a long section on Assheton, ps 162-175 which portrays him as a villain
> but ultimately shows him behaving quite well and refunding a poor widow's
> death duties, albeit only when embarassed into it, and also suggests that
> the original Black Lad was his father.
>
> The book was published in 1829 and is painting a hostile portrait of
> Assheton, yet it makes no mention of executions and spiked barrels, only of
> harsh taxation, which suggests that the idea of Assheton as murderously
> cruel is a recent addition.
>

His activities may have been simply a means to keep lazy tenants in order?

My source is 'The Monumental Brasses of Lancashire & Cheshire' several Wars of the Roses Biographies are listed, 
Said book is a HAND Numbered, Subscribed for Ltd Edition. Circa about 1870.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 22:47
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: mariewalsh2003
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 7:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> > My own suspicion is that this was an ancient tradition with pagan origins
>> > which after the Reformation needed a new explanation since such things
>> > were disapproved of by the Puritans. Pagan religion revolved around two
>> > rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun
>> > king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
>>
>> Yes, and the corn-cockle business makes him sound exactly like some sort of
>> symbol of winter doing war with summer. But he does seem to haver had a
>> dark reputation in his own right, since there's that "save us ... from Sir
>> Ralph de Assheton" rhyme.
>
>Marie asks:
>What is the earliest known date of this Sir Ralph de Assheton rhyme? I would suggest that in order for him to do service as the Black Lad in later times it was enough that he had been Ricghard's Lord Constable - a man with summary powers of execution.
>
>>
>> Wiki has him entitled to act as judge and jury in emergencies, meaning that
>> he may have been feared simply in a "save us from the law" sense. Also I
>> came across a reference (don't recall what) that he had a brother who was an
>> alchemist, and combining that with dressing in black suggests that his
>> sinister reputation came about in part because people thought, rightly or
>> wrongly, that he was a ritual magician or a witch (which is a gender-neutral
>> term in the circles I move in) - and the dressing in black also suggests he
>> may have been a poseur who played up to that.
>>
>> This book Traditions of Lancashire by John Roby
>>
>> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WQM-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=%22ralph+assheton%22+%22black+knight%22&source=bl&ots=0Kf1O40J9J&sig=1pCuv1rQGZyiY3J7knvVnuHFvqU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yxQgUdWZHKaC4ATolYDQDQ&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22ralph%20assheton%22%20%22black%20knight%22&f=false
>>
>> has a long section on Assheton, ps 162-175 which portrays him as a villain
>> but ultimately shows him behaving quite well and refunding a poor widow's
>> death duties, albeit only when embarassed into it, and also suggests that
>> the original Black Lad was his father.
>>
>> The book was published in 1829 and is painting a hostile portrait of
>> Assheton, yet it makes no mention of executions and spiked barrels, only of
>> harsh taxation, which suggests that the idea of Assheton as murderously
>> cruel is a recent addition.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, should have said Vice Constable.
Marie




--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Sir Ralph Assheton was Richard's Lord Constable. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I thought that Richard made Lord Stanley constable after Buckingham's execution.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote [?]

>Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.

> Marie



Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only supposition?

Thanks,

Ric

From: Phaeton G
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:39 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial


>Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in
>charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on
>Easter Monday.

> Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only
> supposition?

The best book on what we know about the original - or at least Iron Age -
British beliefs is probably A Brief History of the Druids by Peter
Berresford Ellis. This is the guy who writes the Soister Fidelma books as
Peter Tremayne - he's a genuine scholar of the Celtic period, very sober and
unsoupy. The belief in the Oak King and the Holly King is certainly old
enough to turn up in mumming plays so it does go back at least to the period
when the legend of the Black Lad was being formulated.

The idea of "the old religion" persisitng as a discretet unit is to a large
extent a modern Wiccan invention, though. Surviving pagan customs tended to
be carried out by people who regarded themselves as Good Catholics, and were
incorporated into local church ritual - well-dressing and wassailing and so
on. This is still the case today. For example Padstow in Cornwall famously
has two "Obby Osses" - hobby horses, things like great round black
tarpaulin-covered tables each balanced on a man's shoulders, with a grinning
bearded demon-mask sticking up in the middle and a tiny stylised horse's
head and tail on the rim - which parade through the town all day on May Day,
ritually dying and being resurrected every half-hour or so, and then meet up
and "fight" around the Maypole: but if May Day is a Sunday then the osses
are put off until May 2nd because the dancers are at least nominally
Christians.

I remember in the early 1980s going to Sutton Cheney, the last church
Richard went to, and lined up behind the altar was a row of corn dollies of
a very untouristy kind, plain and squat like little phallic symbols, or
miniature menhirs.

It's the general interpretation of the myths we have. Myths work on many levels, but that there is a huge element of explanation and ritualisation of the passage of the seasons in them is pretty obvious when you read enough of them. These two characters (sometimes called the Oldf god and the Solar Hero) were in perpetual contention for the earth goddess. Think perhaps of the myth of Persephone, where the summer figure is, granted, not a male suitor but her mother Ceres (ie corn goddess). Persephone ends up spending the winters in the Underworld with Hades and the summers up top with mum.

Also check out Frazer's "The Golden Bough" for a related notion, that there was a solar god/king who died each winter and was replaced. Unfortunately for kings, they were held to represent the sun god so got sacrificed after a year at the top.

Marie


--- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote [?]
>
> >Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
>
> > Marie
>
>
>
> Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only supposition?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ric
>

I totally agree that the Black Lad, etc, would not have constituted deliberate paganism on the part of the 15th century celebrants, but these things were (rightly) regarded as beiong of pagan origin by the puritans and suppressed were possible. Giving them an acceptable political gloss (like Guy Fawkes for the Halloween bonfires) enabled people to keep them going.
Marie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Phaeton G
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:39 PM
> Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial
>
>
> >Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in
> >charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on
> >Easter Monday.
>
> > Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only
> > supposition?
>
> The best book on what we know about the original - or at least Iron Age -
> British beliefs is probably A Brief History of the Druids by Peter
> Berresford Ellis. This is the guy who writes the Soister Fidelma books as
> Peter Tremayne - he's a genuine scholar of the Celtic period, very sober and
> unsoupy. The belief in the Oak King and the Holly King is certainly old
> enough to turn up in mumming plays so it does go back at least to the period
> when the legend of the Black Lad was being formulated.
>
> The idea of "the old religion" persisitng as a discretet unit is to a large
> extent a modern Wiccan invention, though. Surviving pagan customs tended to
> be carried out by people who regarded themselves as Good Catholics, and were
> incorporated into local church ritual - well-dressing and wassailing and so
> on. This is still the case today. For example Padstow in Cornwall famously
> has two "Obby Osses" - hobby horses, things like great round black
> tarpaulin-covered tables each balanced on a man's shoulders, with a grinning
> bearded demon-mask sticking up in the middle and a tiny stylised horse's
> head and tail on the rim - which parade through the town all day on May Day,
> ritually dying and being resurrected every half-hour or so, and then meet up
> and "fight" around the Maypole: but if May Day is a Sunday then the osses
> are put off until May 2nd because the dancers are at least nominally
> Christians.
>
> I remember in the early 1980s going to Sutton Cheney, the last church
> Richard went to, and lined up behind the altar was a row of corn dollies of
> a very untouristy kind, plain and squat like little phallic symbols, or
> miniature menhirs.
>

Shroud Brasses from the Era seem to indicate that a 'Variety' of postures may have been used in laying out the dead. [Praying, hands together, hands by the side etc.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 15:53
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>From: RONALD COOKSLEY
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 3:33 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: Burial
>
>> My point was that because the Franciscans were a mendicant order, I would
>> assume that like some other orders they were buried in their (one and
>> only) habit and therefore might not have suitable spare material. I accept
>> someone's earlier suggestion that they would at least have had sacking at
>> their disposal.
>
>'twas me. And it's just occurred to me that perhaps the fact that his hands
>are together in the manner of the Sangate shroud burial, and yet his legs
>are laid out straight and slightly apart, means that they didn't have enough
>cloth to wrap him completely and so they settled for wrapping his head and
>torso in e.g. a blanket or sacking, and had to leave his feet bare.
>
>
>
>
>

That certainly makes sense. In Meso-America the Catholic traditions and churches are laced withhold religious practices.

On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:08 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Phaeton G
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 10:39 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial

>Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in
>charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on
>Easter Monday.

> Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only
> supposition?

The best book on what we know about the original - or at least Iron Age -
British beliefs is probably A Brief History of the Druids by Peter
Berresford Ellis. This is the guy who writes the Soister Fidelma books as
Peter Tremayne - he's a genuine scholar of the Celtic period, very sober and
unsoupy. The belief in the Oak King and the Holly King is certainly old
enough to turn up in mumming plays so it does go back at least to the period
when the legend of the Black Lad was being formulated.

The idea of "the old religion" persisitng as a discretet unit is to a large
extent a modern Wiccan invention, though. Surviving pagan customs tended to
be carried out by people who regarded themselves as Good Catholics, and were
incorporated into local church ritual - well-dressing and wassailing and so
on. This is still the case today. For example Padstow in Cornwall famously
has two "Obby Osses" - hobby horses, things like great round black
tarpaulin-covered tables each balanced on a man's shoulders, with a grinning
bearded demon-mask sticking up in the middle and a tiny stylised horse's
head and tail on the rim - which parade through the town all day on May Day,
ritually dying and being resurrected every half-hour or so, and then meet up
and "fight" around the Maypole: but if May Day is a Sunday then the osses
are put off until May 2nd because the dancers are at least nominally
Christians.

I remember in the early 1980s going to Sutton Cheney, the last church
Richard went to, and lined up behind the altar was a row of corn dollies of
a very untouristy kind, plain and squat like little phallic symbols, or
miniature menhirs.

Or read some of Joseph Cambell's books on universal myths.

On Feb 23, 2013, at 5:49 PM, "mariewalsh2003" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



It's the general interpretation of the myths we have. Myths work on many levels, but that there is a huge element of explanation and ritualisation of the passage of the seasons in them is pretty obvious when you read enough of them. These two characters (sometimes called the Oldf god and the Solar Hero) were in perpetual contention for the earth goddess. Think perhaps of the myth of Persephone, where the summer figure is, granted, not a male suitor but her mother Ceres (ie corn goddess). Persephone ends up spending the winters in the Underworld with Hades and the summers up top with mum.

Also check out Frazer's "The Golden Bough" for a related notion, that there was a solar god/king who died each winter and was replaced. Unfortunately for kings, they were held to represent the sun god so got sacrificed after a year at the top.

Marie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Phaeton G" wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 wrote [?]
>
> >Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
>
> > Marie
>
>
>
> Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only supposition?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ric
>

Many thanks Marie,

My two cents worth. The 'Old Religion' is I believe no older than Gerald Gardner so dates from the 1950s. The modern concept or religion is an anachronism when applied to pagan religion because pagan cults were non-centralised without an organised priestly structure actively evangelizing as they went. So we are looking more at regional cults - even the Romans were not dogmatic with their Pantheon (copied from Greece) and adapted their beliefs as they went, quite tolerant in some ways.

Folklore is a great tool but must be looked at critically. Folklore as a discipline - out of which grew Frazer's Golden Bough - did not take form until the late Victorian and early Edwardian period, and was generally collected by well-heeled men of leisure drawn from a completely different social background from those who practiced folk song and dance who were typically agricultural workers.

I have looked objectively at Gardner's belief system. It looks to me to be basically a copy of the late Greek pagan model with a male deity [Zeus/Dieu] and a female consort, in Zeus' case Hera. This formula seems to have influenced the early Church I think, you will remember Christianity grew from a cult which began in pagan Rome. The goddess figure in Christianity becomes a mother archetype, Mary. Christianity further incorporates the concept of a solar god drawn from Sol Invictus - the original god of Constantine the Great, proclaimed emperor in York - which can be tracked back to Persian Mithra. The late Greek pagans are also responsible for the widely accepted idea of the female moon - male sun formula, which doesn't actually hold up very well when you look further back into history. Gardner accents the goddess in his system, I wonder if Hinduism may have had some bearing here, since Hindu goddesses are still widely believed in today as they were in Gardner's time. See 'sources' -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wicca#The_New_Forest_coven

To keep things short, we cannot always safely rely upon 'accepted folklore' unless it is actually backed up with document, evidence or sound & demonstrable research. Most especially when we are dealing with verified historic personages such as Richard the Third.

There is no such entity as the earth goddess per se unless she is part of a cultural complex, so if we are talking about an earth goddess we better give her a name. If we are referring to Demeter for example - mother of Persephone - her context is cereals (Roman Ceres) and therefore agriculture which means pre-agricultural concepts of chthonic deities may have been different. In other words, we cannot take 'sun god' and 'earth mother' as archetypes uncritically.

Sacrifice of male gods does in fact exist in European pagan antiquity but from what I have seen the pattern is bovine rather than solar, the sacrificial victim was often a bull, such as in the taurobolium associated with Dionysus (similar name to Zeus in fact, who actually assumed the form of a bull).

Aspects of pre-Christian belief did definitely persist, and in Britain, look at the names of the months and days of the week for instance, but we must tread warily. The men of leisure might have done as much harm as they did good because in collecting folklore they could arguably have stamped their own interpretation on it which may not have correlated to the thoughts of the people actually practicing that folklore at the time.

The Reformation & subsequent Commonwealth period were at pains I agree to suppress anything resembling paganism in popular culture and indeed in the Church itself.

Thanks again - interesting thread.

Ric






--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It's the general interpretation of the myths we have. Myths work on many levels, but that there is a huge element of explanation and ritualisation of the passage of the seasons in them is pretty obvious when you read enough of them. These two characters (sometimes called the Oldf god and the Solar Hero) were in perpetual contention for the earth goddess. Think perhaps of the myth of Persephone, where the summer figure is, granted, not a male suitor but her mother Ceres (ie corn goddess). Persephone ends up spending the winters in the Underworld with Hades and the summers up top with mum.
>
> Also check out Frazer's "The Golden Bough" for a related notion, that there was a solar god/king who died each winter and was replaced. Unfortunately for kings, they were held to represent the sun god so got sacrificed after a year at the top.
>
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote [?]
> >
> > >Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
> >
> > > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only supposition?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ric
> >
>

From what we saw [& in fairness others may have more information.] It could have been a 'Bodkin' arrowhead' Stanley's retainer lads [Both Cheshire & Lancashire] were inclusive of Many Archers. Can tests be done to 'Age Assess' the Iron involved? 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 16:05
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>No, but..... It should be procedure now to note, date and catalogue everything.
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Feb 18, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@...@...>> wrote:
>
>Couldn't it just have been that it was all done in a great hurry and the friars hardly had time to sieve the earth? After all, it's not normal practice even now, is it? H
>
>________________________________
>From: George Butterfield gbutterf1@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 15:35
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>So it was on top ?
>G
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Feb 18, 2013, at 10:38 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>> From: George Butterfield
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 3:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>> > I also have no idea about the Roman occupation of Leicester, but I would
>> > suggest a heavy occupation and lots of buildings, tiles and nails.
>> George
>>
>> Sure, but the position is odd. If it was under him when he was buried then
>> it was right under him and he was laid down with his skin against it, so
>> there was no earth between him and it, and then it had to have happened to
>> be lined up with a space between his vertebrae so that his bones sort-of
>> sunk in round it. It's not impossible, just as it's not impossible that it
>> was in a spadeful of earth which happened to be laid over the middle of his
>> chest, but given the Mediaeval preoccupation with supposed bits of the True
>> Cross it's at least suggestive. And it would be nice to think he was buried
>> with an affectionate gesture, as well as raised with one.
>>
>> *If* it's a nail, and not an arrowhead as they first thought, which I'm not
>> convinced of.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very interesting post, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying - that these odd English folk traditions and local tales, which certainly predate Frazer, Gardner et al, didn't have pre-Christian quasi-religious origins and really were just, for instance, the commemoration of a bad landlord or the slaying of a local dragon? I realise we have to be careful before pronouncing definitely in any particular case, but I would rather err on the side of pagan folk tradition as regards the black Lad until Sir Ralph Assheton's career and local behaviour has been properly researched, which to my knowledge hasn't happened yet; we surely owe Sir Ralph the major benefit of the doubt.
As for Sir Maurice Berkeley of Beverstone slaying a dragon on Burley Beacon c.1460, as recorded in a tale written down by descendants in the 17th-century, I'm afraid I can't accept that as based on a real event, any more than I believe that the Conyers' family's hereditary sword was really used to slay the Sockburn Worm. So what were the dragons all about?
We could argue about whether there was a concept of an earth goddess, or just a lot of goddesses, but I personally lean towards the idea that what we have in the Greek pantheon, and to a lesser extent in the Celtic, is the fracturing of an originally simple concept.
Marie


--- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@...> wrote:
>
> Many thanks Marie,
>
> My two cents worth. The 'Old Religion' is I believe no older than Gerald Gardner so dates from the 1950s. The modern concept or religion is an anachronism when applied to pagan religion because pagan cults were non-centralised without an organised priestly structure actively evangelizing as they went. So we are looking more at regional cults - even the Romans were not dogmatic with their Pantheon (copied from Greece) and adapted their beliefs as they went, quite tolerant in some ways.
>
> Folklore is a great tool but must be looked at critically. Folklore as a discipline - out of which grew Frazer's Golden Bough - did not take form until the late Victorian and early Edwardian period, and was generally collected by well-heeled men of leisure drawn from a completely different social background from those who practiced folk song and dance who were typically agricultural workers.
>
> I have looked objectively at Gardner's belief system. It looks to me to be basically a copy of the late Greek pagan model with a male deity [Zeus/Dieu] and a female consort, in Zeus' case Hera. This formula seems to have influenced the early Church I think, you will remember Christianity grew from a cult which began in pagan Rome. The goddess figure in Christianity becomes a mother archetype, Mary. Christianity further incorporates the concept of a solar god drawn from Sol Invictus - the original god of Constantine the Great, proclaimed emperor in York - which can be tracked back to Persian Mithra. The late Greek pagans are also responsible for the widely accepted idea of the female moon - male sun formula, which doesn't actually hold up very well when you look further back into history. Gardner accents the goddess in his system, I wonder if Hinduism may have had some bearing here, since Hindu goddesses are still widely believed in today as they were in Gardner's time. See 'sources' -
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wicca#The_New_Forest_coven
>
> To keep things short, we cannot always safely rely upon 'accepted folklore' unless it is actually backed up with document, evidence or sound & demonstrable research. Most especially when we are dealing with verified historic personages such as Richard the Third.
>
> There is no such entity as the earth goddess per se unless she is part of a cultural complex, so if we are talking about an earth goddess we better give her a name. If we are referring to Demeter for example - mother of Persephone - her context is cereals (Roman Ceres) and therefore agriculture which means pre-agricultural concepts of chthonic deities may have been different. In other words, we cannot take 'sun god' and 'earth mother' as archetypes uncritically.
>
> Sacrifice of male gods does in fact exist in European pagan antiquity but from what I have seen the pattern is bovine rather than solar, the sacrificial victim was often a bull, such as in the taurobolium associated with Dionysus (similar name to Zeus in fact, who actually assumed the form of a bull).
>
> Aspects of pre-Christian belief did definitely persist, and in Britain, look at the names of the months and days of the week for instance, but we must tread warily. The men of leisure might have done as much harm as they did good because in collecting folklore they could arguably have stamped their own interpretation on it which may not have correlated to the thoughts of the people actually practicing that folklore at the time.
>
> The Reformation & subsequent Commonwealth period were at pains I agree to suppress anything resembling paganism in popular culture and indeed in the Church itself.
>
> Thanks again - interesting thread.
>
> Ric
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > It's the general interpretation of the myths we have. Myths work on many levels, but that there is a huge element of explanation and ritualisation of the passage of the seasons in them is pretty obvious when you read enough of them. These two characters (sometimes called the Oldf god and the Solar Hero) were in perpetual contention for the earth goddess. Think perhaps of the myth of Persephone, where the summer figure is, granted, not a male suitor but her mother Ceres (ie corn goddess). Persephone ends up spending the winters in the Underworld with Hades and the summers up top with mum.
> >
> > Also check out Frazer's "The Golden Bough" for a related notion, that there was a solar god/king who died each winter and was replaced. Unfortunately for kings, they were held to represent the sun god so got sacrificed after a year at the top.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Phaeton G" <phaetongraph@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote [?]
> > >
> > > >Pagan religion revolved around two rival male figures, an old dark god in charge of winter, and the young sun king, and this event takes place on Easter Monday.
> > >
> > > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Remarkable. Can any of this be vouched for please or is it only supposition?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ric
> > >
> >
>

From: Phaeton G
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial


> My two cents worth. The 'Old Religion' is I believe no older than Gerald
> Gardner so dates from the 1950s.

Gardner supposedly did incorporate some old beliefs collected from local
communities in the New Forest, but it's unlikely that the people who held
them would have thought of themselves as pagans. If they used the
expression "Old Religion" they were probably thinking of Catholicism -
albeit possibly the sort of Catholicism which incorporated holy wells and
tieing rags onto sacred trees and having sex in the woods at Beltane.

[As a definitely Old Age pagan myself I find the modern Wiccans' tendency to
present themselves as a one true authentic survival very irritating.]

> The modern concept or religion is an anachronism when applied to pagan
> religion because pagan cults were non-centralised

That's just splitting hairs over definitions, though. I would say a
religion is an established belief system about the divine and they certainly
had that.

> without an organised priestly structure

Actually the Druids had an organised structure - it's just that religion was
only a minor part of it. They were more of an academic and administrative
class.

> actively evangelizing as they went.

Hang on - if you're going to say that you're not a religion if you don't
evangelise, you have to say that Judaism isn't a religion. Or Hinduism, for
that matter.

> Folklore is a great tool but must be looked at critically. Folklore as a
> discipline - out of which grew Frazer's Golden Bough - did not take form
> until the late Victorian and early Edwardian period, and was generally
> collected by well-heeled men of leisure drawn from a completely different
> social background from those who practiced folk song and dance who were
> typically agricultural workers.

Yes - they tried to force an organised structure onto it which probably
didn't belong there.

> I have looked objectively at Gardner's belief system. It looks to me to be
> basically a copy of the late Greek pagan model with a male deity
> [Zeus/Dieu] and a female consort, in Zeus' case Hera. This formula seems
> to have influenced the early Church I think, you will remember
> Christianity grew from a cult which began in pagan Rome. The goddess
> figure in Christianity becomes a mother archetype, Mary.

Yes, and in fact the misogyny in Christianity was Greek pagan in origin, not
Jewish. God in Jewish tradition is really gender-neutral. There's no
neuter tense in Hebrew so they can't call God "It", so instead God is
divided into male and female aspects (the thing Christinas call the Holy
Spirit is "She" in Judaism), and called "Father" but also described as
having a womb.

> There is no such entity as the earth goddess per se

You're an atheist, I take it, or a convinced Christian. I would say, the
gods and goddesses exist, but the labels (and genders) we put on them are
cultural constructs.

> Sacrifice of male gods does in fact exist in European pagan antiquity but
> from what I have seen the pattern is bovine rather than solar, the
> sacrificial victim was often a bull, such as in the taurobolium associated
> with Dionysus (similar name to Zeus in fact, who actually assumed the form
> of a bull).

The ballad Tam Lin seems to be a memory of an annual (or rather
seven-yearly) sacrifice.

> The men of leisure might have done as much harm as they did good because
> in collecting folklore they could arguably have stamped their own
> interpretation on it which may not have correlated to the thoughts of the
> people actually practicing that folklore at the time.

Yes. Incidentally, in Gaelic the sun and moon are both usually "she". In
the Ancient Egyptian pantheon the Earth was a priapic male figure forever
arching upwards into mountains as he tried to reach and mate with a female
sky. John and Caitlin Matthews fall down in their analysis of the idea of
personalised Sovereignty in British tradition when they try to find some
very convoluted explanation for the Fisher King - they've started to think
that Sovereignty as a personalised entity really *is* female, rather than
that it is a neuter concept which is usually but not always presented as
being female, and so they can't see that the Fisher King is just an unusual
example of Soveriegnty being presented as male.

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:34 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial


> So what were the dragons all about?

Combination of ancient remembered folk tales and people trying to make sense
of dinosaur skeletons! There's a wonderful book called The First Fossil
Hunters which is about Ancient Greek palaeontologists.

Another good reference that covers everything from antiquity to the present is The Secret Teachings of All Ages: An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy by Manly P. Hall.

Everything is intertwined, with nothing new in any system, pagan or otherwise.

~Weds

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip] There's no neuter tense in Hebrew so they can't call God "It" [snip]

Carol responds:

Tiny correction here. "Tense" (past, present, future, etc.) relates to verbs. "Gender" (masculine, feminine, neuter) relates to nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. Whether Hebrew has a neuter pronoun, I can't say, but "it" generally applies to inanimate objects.

English also has no non-gender-specific pronoun applicable to people and animals, which is why we resort to "he or she" or even "they" to refer to a person of unknown sex. (We used to say "he"; I sometimes still do.) We may sometimes resort to "it" for babies or animals, but it properly refers to objects and concepts. Whether Hebrew grammar is similar to English in these respects, I can't say, not being familiar with Semitic languages.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 7:15 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial

> Whether Hebrew grammar is similar to English in these respects, I can't
> say, not being familiar with Semitic languages.

No neuter pronoun then, if you prefer. Everything in Hebrew (and in
Gaelic!) has to have a gender and even the mosi inanimate of objects has to
be a he or a she. Hence God is split into a moving and a static portion,
divided by genders, just like Yin and Yang, in order to achieve
gender-neutrality - except that in eastern philosophies "Man does, woman is"
and in Jewish theology it's the "I am" bit of God which is male and the "I
do" which is female.

I am 70 in May & on Two Sticks !!! [A lifetime of lifting patients & a 'Knee Op gone awry]

At the level of wealth enjoyed by ALL Three [Richard & his Brothers] Armour would be 'Made to Measure' as would clothing. 

Any Tailor or Armourer at that level would hide any physical abnormality and present the wearer as would a 15th Century 
Saville Row 'Top Shop' [Surely?]

Back to 'The Back' to glean an accurate picture a top Orthopod from somewhere as prestigious as 'Stoke Mandeville' needs to reconstruct this with the intervertebral disks reconstructed with silicone or similar. 

I was 'Unhappy' with the vertebral 'Gaps' as presented as they would have meant lifelong paralysis, 
which was plainly NOT present.  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook <lolettecook@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 16:28
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>Oh Arthur, you did not distress me at all!  No one would even know my back was crooked unless I pointed it out.  I believe this may have been the case with Richard. I just don't like it when his scoliosis is described as hunchback.  LOL I guess I take it personally 
>Vickie
>
>From: Arthurian lancastrian@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:29 AM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>  Vickie, 
>            I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.
>
>  In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
>>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> 
>>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>>
>>Vickie
>>
>>From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
>>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>> 
>>From: Arthurian
>>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>>
>>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>>previously taken from a poor widow.
>>
>>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>>
>>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>>
>>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> No neuter pronoun then, if you prefer. Everything in Hebrew (and in Gaelic!) has to have a gender and even the mosi inanimate of objects has to be a he or a she. Hence God is split into a moving and a static portion, divided by genders, just like Yin and Yang, in order to achieve gender-neutrality - except that in eastern philosophies "Man does, woman is" and in Jewish theology it's the "I am" bit of God which is male and the "I do" which is female.
>
Carol responds:

I do prefer "gender" to "tense" because "tense" is simply incorrect. As I said earlier, it relates to verbs ("am" vs. "was" or "do" vs. "did").

I take your point (I think) that nouns (or pronouns) denoting objects were either masculine or feminine (like the feminine "mesa" for "table" in Spanish) and that there was no neuter pronoun ("it"), but that's not quite the same thing as not having a pronoun to convey androgyny in a living being. Since "neuter" implies an *absence* of gender, "gender-neutral" might be a better term.

But the problem here seems to be incompatible languages and the inadequacy of translation to convey certain concepts, especially when both languages lack a gender-neutral pronoun.

Can you explain how you know that "I am" is masculine and "I do" is feminine? Does Hebrew (like Navajo) have a different word for "I" when spoken by a man and a woman (a feminine and a masculine form)? English, for example, has different forms for third-person pronouns (he, she, it) but not for second-person (you) or first-person (I).

Also, what happened when these passages were translated into Latin and Greek, which did have a concept of a neuter gender (but not a gender-neutral pronoun for androgynous beings that I'm aware of)?

I'm actually quite fascinated by this discussion, which I suspect ties in somehow with Yahwe/Ashera, a concept that had been suppressed long before Roman Catholicism came into existence.

I've forgotten how we got to this point (aside from my quibble about "neuter tense") or how it ties in with Richard.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 8:14 PM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial

> Can you explain how you know that "I am" is masculine and "I do" is
> feminine? Does Hebrew (like Navajo) have a different word for "I" when
> spoken by a man and a woman (a feminine and a masculine form)? English,
> for example, has different forms for third-person pronouns (he, she, it)
> but not for second-person (you) or first-person (I).

I don't mean that the actual phrases "I am" and I do" are masculine and
feminine, but that the aspects of God associated with those phrases are
masculine and feminine. The fixed aspect of God called Adonai, the Lord,
the bit that famously says "I am that I am", is "He" or "Father", while the
Shekinah, the aspect of God which moves and acts in the world and which
Christians call the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is nearly always "She".
There's also a reference somewhere in Jewish liturgy to the womb of God.

This may reflect - or have inspired - that fact that in Jewish culture it
has traditionally been quite common for men to study while women ran the
farms, businesses etc. And although Orthodox Judaism is quite sexist in
that e.g. women aren't allowed to study Torah, if you ask a rabbi why that
is, the official answer is "Because woman are born better than men, so they
don't need the discipline of study in order to civilise them."

There is actually a small Jewish-pagan movement in Israel, dedicated to
uncovering traces of ancient goddess-worship which they believe were
incorporated into Judaism.

> Also, what happened when these passages were translated into Latin and
> Greek, which did have a concept of a neuter gender (but not a
> gender-neutral pronoun for androgynous beings that I'm aware of)?

They just made them both "He"! The Greeks were a sexist bunch - although a
mate of mine who has a Masters in Theology believes that this came about in
part because the philosopher Xenophon had a truly appalling wife and he
thought all women were like that, and philosophised about their inferiority.
Also in Ancient Greece prostitutes were supposed to be able to carry on
intelligent conversation about politics, like Geishas, so it's a fair bet
that posh women would pride themselves on having no idea about the world in
order to differentiate themselves from sex workers, giving their husbands
the idea that women were generally dim. Unless their husbands patronised
female prostitutes, of course.

> I'm actually quite fascinated by this discussion, which I suspect ties in
> somehow with Yahwe/Ashera, a concept that had been suppressed long before
> Roman Catholicism came into existence.

[Looks it up.] Yes, that sounds like the sort of thing the Jewish-pagan
movement is looking into. Adonai and the Shekinah, though, are not husband
and wife but aspects of one being, like when people say "Get in touch with
your feninine side".

> I've forgotten how we got to this point (aside from my quibble about
> "neuter tense") or how it ties in with Richard.

It was about whether the more outré bits of Assheton's reputation were the
result of his becoming fused with local traditioons of a Winter God or demon
figure.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> I don't mean that the actual phrases "I am" and I do" are masculine and feminine, but that the aspects of God associated with those phrases are masculine and feminine. The fixed aspect of God called Adonai, the Lord, he bit that famously says "I am that I am", is "He" or "Father", while the Shekinah, the aspect of God which moves and acts in the world and which Christians call the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit, is nearly always "She". There's also a reference somewhere in Jewish liturgy to the womb of God. [snip]

> The Greeks were a sexist bunch - although a mate of mine who has a Masters in Theology believes that this came about in part because the philosopher Xenophon had a truly appalling wife and he thought all women were like that, and philosophised about their inferiority.
> Also in Ancient Greece prostitutes were supposed to be able to carry on intelligent conversation about politics, like Geishas, so it's a fair bet that posh women would pride themselves on having no idea about the world in order to differentiate themselves from sex workers, giving their husbands the idea that women were generally dim. Unless their husbands patronised female prostitutes, of course.

[snip]
> It was about whether the more outré bits of Assheton's reputation were the result of his becoming fused with local traditioons of a Winter God or demon figure.
>
Carol responds:

Fascinating. You might want to look more into the Yahweh/Asherah idea as it ties in quite nicely with what you're talking about. The suppression of the feminine side of God occurred among the Hebrews, too, I think during the Babylonian captivity. Are you familiar with the four strains of the Old Testament (or Torah): Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist (called J, E, P, and D, with J resulting from this misrendering of Yah weh as Jehovah)? I think that the suppression of the female element begins with the Deuteronomists, but it's been forty years since I studied any of this seriously.

The hetaerae, cultured women hired as companions by men in ancient Greece. were not necessarily prostitutes, or at least not exclusively. They were very different from, and much richer than, the common prostitutes, and much freer than either the common prostitutes or so-called free women. If you haven't read it already, you would probably enjoy "Courtesans and Fishcakes" by James Davidson. I would talk more about famous hetaerae and misogyny in ancient Greece, but we're getting way off topic. I suppose we could talk about courtesans vs. prostitutes in fifteenth-century England, but it's not the same thing.

Oh, right. Ralph Assheton. My theory is that the same thing happened to him that happened to many of Richard's associates, whether or not they survived Bosworth. Their reputations were blackened along with Richard's. (At least Assheton wasn't accused of murdering Richard's nephews!) It's hard to find anything complimentary about Francis Lovell, for example, unless it's in a pro-Ricardian novel. And Catesby is a villain even to some Ricardians. About the only associate of Richard's who seems to have escaped the calumny altogether is "gentle Brackenbury," about whom not even More has a bad word to say.

Carol

Although skilled tailors/armourers could undoubtedly disguise the scoliosis, I'm  wondering about the Coronation ceremony where I believe the anointing was done with the King (and even Queen!) being required to be stripped to the waist. Was this done in extreme secrecy under cover of the  canopy (possibly vestigial?) which still plays a part in the modern ceremony?



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 15:29
Subject: Re: Burial

 
I am 70 in May & on Two Sticks !!! [A lifetime of lifting patients & a 'Knee Op gone awry]

At the level of wealth enjoyed by ALL Three [Richard & his Brothers] Armour would be 'Made to Measure' as would clothing. 

Any Tailor or Armourer at that level would hide any physical abnormality and present the wearer as would a 15th Century 
Saville Row 'Top Shop' [Surely?]

Back to 'The Back' to glean an accurate picture a top Orthopod from somewhere as prestigious as 'Stoke Mandeville' needs to reconstruct this with the intervertebral disks reconstructed with silicone or similar. 

I was 'Unhappy' with the vertebral 'Gaps' as presented as they would have meant lifelong paralysis, 
which was plainly NOT present.  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 16:28
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
>
> 
>Oh Arthur, you did not distress me at all!  No one would even know my back was crooked unless I pointed it out.  I believe this may have been the case with Richard. I just don't like it when his scoliosis is described as hunchback.  LOL I guess I take it personally 
>Vickie
>
>From: Arthurian mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com>
>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:29 AM
>Subject: Re: Burial
>
> 
>  Vickie, 
>            I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.
>
>  In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
>>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>>
>> 
>>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
>>
>>Vickie
>>
>>From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
>>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>> 
>>From: Arthurian
>>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
>>Subject: Re: Burial
>>
>>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
>>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
>>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
>>
>>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
>>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
>>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
>>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
>>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
>>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
>>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
>>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
>>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
>>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
>>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
>>previously taken from a poor widow.
>>
>>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
>>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
>>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
>>
>>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
>>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
>>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
>>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
>>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
>>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
>>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
>>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
>>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
>>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
>>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
>>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
>>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
>>
>>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
>>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
>>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
>>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
>>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've been looking at the list of Richard's horses at grass. I love the fact
that in amongst all these grand or florid or descriptive names there's a
horse who is simply called Jack, and I suppose there's nothing odd about his
having a horse called The White Witch - I imagine a fast but rather boney
grey mare. But why on earth does he have a horse called The Holy
Witch-Master?

RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
>
> Although skilled tailors/armourers could undoubtedly disguise the scoliosis, I'm  wondering about the Coronation ceremony where I believe the anointing was done with the King (and even Queen!) being required to be stripped to the waist. Was this done in extreme secrecy under cover of the  canopy (possibly vestigial?) which still plays a part in the modern ceremony?

Carol responds:

I'm not sure where that idea originated. Possibly a reference in the coronation documents has been misinterpreted to mean that they were actually naked to the waist, but I'm pretty sure that Sutton and Hammond's "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" explains that they were really in what we would call their underwear, he in his shirt and she in her shift. Someone who owns or has access to that very expensive book can double-check. Or you can search for posts with "naked to the waist" in them as this topic has come up rather frequently on this forum.

Carol

Because "Jacquetta" would have given it away.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> I've been looking at the list of Richard's horses at grass. I love the fact
> that in amongst all these grand or florid or descriptive names there's a
> horse who is simply called Jack, and I suppose there's nothing odd about his
> having a horse called The White Witch - I imagine a fast but rather boney
> grey mare. But why on earth does he have a horse called The Holy
> Witch-Master?
>

Thank you Carol........that's a bit of a relief! (and apologies for the repetition)



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 23:16
Subject: Re: Burial

 
RONALD COOKSLEY wrote:
>
> Although skilled tailors/armourers could undoubtedly disguise the scoliosis, I'm  wondering about the Coronation ceremony where I believe the anointing was done with the King (and even Queen!) being required to be stripped to the waist. Was this done in extreme secrecy under cover of the  canopy (possibly vestigial?) which still plays a part in the modern ceremony?

Carol responds:

I'm not sure where that idea originated. Possibly a reference in the coronation documents has been misinterpreted to mean that they were actually naked to the waist, but I'm pretty sure that Sutton and Hammond's "The Coronation of Richard III: The Extant Documents" explains that they were really in what we would call their underwear, he in his shirt and she in her shift. Someone who owns or has access to that very expensive book can double-check. Or you can search for posts with "naked to the waist" in them as this topic has come up rather frequently on this forum.

Carol

They weren't stripped to the waist - see Hammond & Sutton's "The Coronation of Richard III".
Marie

--- In , RONALD COOKSLEY <greyfox.cooksley@...> wrote:
>
> Although skilled tailors/armourers could undoubtedly disguise the scoliosis, I'm  wondering about the Coronation ceremony where I believe the anointing was done with the King (and even Queen!) being required to be stripped to the waist. Was this done in extreme secrecy under cover of the  canopy (possibly vestigial?) which still plays a part in the modern ceremony?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 15:29
> Subject: Re: Burial
>
>  
> I am 70 in May & on Two Sticks !!! [A lifetime of lifting patients & a 'Knee Op gone awry]
>
> At the level of wealth enjoyed by ALL Three [Richard & his Brothers] Armour would be 'Made to Measure' as would clothing. 
>
> Any Tailor or Armourer at that level would hide any physical abnormality and present the wearer as would a 15th Century 
> Saville Row 'Top Shop' [Surely?]
>
> Back to 'The Back' to glean an accurate picture a top Orthopod from somewhere as prestigious as 'Stoke Mandeville' needs to reconstruct this with the intervertebral disks reconstructed with silicone or similar. 
>
> I was 'Unhappy' with the vertebral 'Gaps' as presented as they would have meant lifelong paralysis, 
> which was plainly NOT present.  
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
> >To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 20 February 2013, 16:28
> >Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> >
> > 
> >Oh Arthur, you did not distress me at all!  No one would even know my back was crooked unless I pointed it out.  I believe this may have been the case with Richard. I just don't like it when his scoliosis is described as hunchback.  LOL I guess I take it personally 
> >Vickie
> >
> >From: Arthurian mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com>
> >To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 7:29 AM
> >Subject: Re: Burial
> >
> > 
> >  Vickie, 
> >            I would hope NOT to have caused any distress to you in any way, I was trying to make the point that, Contrary to what some people believe, even in this modern age, physical disability of ANY kind is TOTALLY unrelated to good or evil. [I was thinking of some reported beliefs of a former England football manager that associated disability in his mind, with a divine 'Judgement' for previous sins!!] A stance more widely held in Richard's day.
> >
> >  In my mind, even if Richard had the most crooked of backs, his performance as a leader, manager & supporter of his brother Edward [While he lived] was both remarkable [and the more so] if he had a disability.
> > 
> >Kind Regards,
> > 
> >Arthur.
> >
> >>________________________________
> >> From: Vickie Cook mailto:lolettecook%40yahoo.com>
> >>To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:03
> >>Subject: Re: Burial
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >>I have no problem with Richard having Scoliosis ( I also have scoliosis).  What I do have a problem with is Scoliosis not being described accurately.
> >>
> >>Vickie
> >>
> >>From: Claire M Jordan mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>
> >>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 3:55 PM
> >>Subject: Re: Burial
> >>
> >> 
> >>From: Arthurian
> >>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 4:55 PM
> >>Subject: Re: Burial
> >>
> >>> This represented Sir Ralph Assheton who in the reigns of the earlier
> >>> Tudors rode around the lands of his tenants and penalised any whose fields
> >>> had any corn cockles [weeds] in them.
> >>
> >>Now that's cheating, blaming Assheton on the Tudors - he was one of
> >>Richard's most loyal (and rewarded) supporters and supposedly a personal
> >>friend of his, although I don't know what the evidence for that is and he
> >>was 31 years older than Richard. He has accrued a monstrous, psychopathic
> >>reputation with stories of him arbitrarily executing peasants by horrible
> >>tortures, but it looks as though he has simply been merged with the local
> >>idea of the devil, because an early book on historical traditions in the
> >>area doesn't say anything about executions, cruel or otherwise. It
> >>describes him rather as somebody hot-tempered who levied fines and taxes
> >>very harshly, then shows him behaving well - albeit only because he had been
> >>publicly shamed into it - and returning the death duties which he had
> >>previously taken from a poor widow.
> >>
> >>> Sorry to 'Ramble on' but even IF Richard WAS a 'Hunchback,' Crookback or
> >>> Scoliosis sufferer [or Kypho - Scoliosis sufferer, He is NOT necessarily a
> >>> bad man [Nor a 'Good' man either.]
> >>
> >>Yes, exactly. It makes me uneasy how many people seem to not want to
> >>believe he had scoliosis. I mean, yes, you have to square it with his being
> >>a skilled soldier so it can't have been so serious as to cause any
> >>significant disability, and I wonder myself whether the process of
> >>mummification and decay has pulled his bones further out of alignment than
> >>they were in life, because his spine looks as if it maybe has bigger gaps
> >>between the vertebrae than should be accounted for by the missing discs.
> >>But some of the people in the documentary seemed to be horrified just at the
> >>suggestion that he had an abnormality at all, which is rather different.
> >>This was a real, living, breathing young man who had a wiggly spine he was
> >>probably quite embarrassed about, and reacting with too muchy horror to the
> >>scoliosis is like saying to that young man "You're not good enough to be our
> >>hero, because you're not physically perfect."
> >>
> >>Incidentally, am I right to think there was no rumour of his having a
> >>crooked back prior to his being killed and peeled naked out of his armour?
> >>If so that implies great discretion on the part of his body servants,
> >>squires and sexual partners, which is perhaps another piece of evidence that
> >>he was held in great affection by those close to him.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> I've been looking at the list of Richard's horses at grass. I love the fact
> that in amongst all these grand or florid or descriptive names there's a
> horse who is simply called Jack, and I suppose there's nothing odd about his
> having a horse called The White Witch - I imagine a fast but rather boney
> grey mare. But why on earth does he have a horse called The Holy
> Witch-Master?
>

Marie replies:
Ho dear! Where did you see this, in Harley 433 or in modernised spelling on some website?
These are what the two horses in question actually were:-

"THE WHITE WITCH"
"The White whiche was Sir Rauf Hastinges. Ambling there"
Actually means "The white [ie white horse] which was Sir Ralph Hastings'".

"THE HOLY WITCH-MASTER"
"Thehoby whiche Maister potier rode on in the west cuntre."
Actually means: "The hobby [ie a small horse] which Master Potier rode on in the West Country"

I suspect that Richard's stable, like today's racing stables, used a combination of the names of the sire and dam when they named a foal. So I suspect The White Witch was sired by the Holy Witch-Master, and that his holiness was also white. The nobility favored grey/white horses.

You might also like this (with a nod to George, who set us onto Archie Fisher to begin with) which ties in nicely with Richard, since I believe Westmoreland was part of his mini-kingdom?

http://youtu.be/OwRnKeFOhVQ


> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > I've been looking at the list of Richard's horses at grass. I love the fact
> > that in amongst all these grand or florid or descriptive names there's a
> > horse who is simply called Jack, and I suppose there's nothing odd about his
> > having a horse called The White Witch - I imagine a fast but rather boney
> > grey mare. But why on earth does he have a horse called The Holy
> > Witch-Master?
> >
>

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 1:00 AM
Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial

> Marie replies:
Ho dear! Where did you see this, in Harley 433 or in modernised spelling on
some website?

On this forum - it's in your collection of files. I noticed it while I was
looking for the essay about the marriage clauses. It has "The Holy Whiche
Maister" (definitely "Holy" not "Hoby") on one line, as if it's a
stand-alone name, and "The White Whiche" ditto below it, with no mention of
Hastings or Potier.

> These are what the two horses in question actually were:-

Is there a better version of the list available than the one on the forum?

Oh goodness, I've opened a can of worms here. But I would be sincerely intrigued if anyone can identify pagan motifs from the 1400s.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Phaeton G
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 3:08 PM
> Subject: Pagan religion? Re: Burial
>
>
> > My two cents worth. The 'Old Religion' is I believe no older than Gerald
> > Gardner so dates from the 1950s.
>
> Gardner supposedly did incorporate some old beliefs collected from local
> communities in the New Forest, but it's unlikely that the people who held
> them would have thought of themselves as pagans. If they used the
> expression "Old Religion" they were probably thinking of Catholicism -
> albeit possibly the sort of Catholicism which incorporated holy wells and
> tieing rags onto sacred trees and having sex in the woods at Beltane.
>
> [As a definitely Old Age pagan myself I find the modern Wiccans' tendency to
> present themselves as a one true authentic survival very irritating.]


Beltane / May Day, there is a definite tradition of celebration both for May Day and for Midsummer (back to the Bard) not only in Britain with its Celtic culture but also in England. This begs a huge question since the Venerable Bede in the 8th century tells us that the population were indifferent to midsummer, 'Litha' he calls it. That can't be correct, why name a time of year at all if it was regarded with indifference?


>
> > The modern concept or religion is an anachronism when applied to pagan
> > religion because pagan cults were non-centralised
>
> That's just splitting hairs over definitions, though. I would say a
> religion is an established belief system about the divine and they certainly
> had that.


Yes, that is religion in the pre-modern sense, what we today would call a cult, no less sacred or sincere to the people who were involved in it.


>
> > without an organised priestly structure
>
> Actually the Druids had an organised structure - it's just that religion was
> only a minor part of it. They were more of an academic and administrative
> class.

Yes the Druids but 'Celtic Religion' in the old sense of the word was a collection of similar cults with great variation here and there. There was certainly no-one central creating saints here and heretics there; Celtic Religion before the Romans got at it was probably quite similar to Hinduism in some respects, since it was polytheistic.


>
> > actively evangelizing as they went.
>
> Hang on - if you're going to say that you're not a religion if you don't
> evangelise, you have to say that Judaism isn't a religion. Or Hinduism, for
> that matter.

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying however that monotheism is often characterised by evangelism though.


>
> > Folklore is a great tool but must be looked at critically. Folklore as a
> > discipline - out of which grew Frazer's Golden Bough - did not take form
> > until the late Victorian and early Edwardian period, and was generally
> > collected by well-heeled men of leisure drawn from a completely different
> > social background from those who practiced folk song and dance who were
> > typically agricultural workers.
>
> Yes - they tried to force an organised structure onto it which probably
> didn't belong there.
>
> > I have looked objectively at Gardner's belief system. It looks to me to be
> > basically a copy of the late Greek pagan model with a male deity
> > [Zeus/Dieu] and a female consort, in Zeus' case Hera. This formula seems
> > to have influenced the early Church I think, you will remember
> > Christianity grew from a cult which began in pagan Rome. The goddess
> > figure in Christianity becomes a mother archetype, Mary.
>


> Yes, and in fact the misogyny in Christianity was Greek pagan in origin, not
> Jewish. God in Jewish tradition is really gender-neutral. There's no
> neuter tense in Hebrew so they can't call God "It", so instead God is
> divided into male and female aspects (the thing Christinas call the Holy
> Spirit is "She" in Judaism), and called "Father" but also described as
> having a womb.


Judaism has a goddess in fact, she is called the Shekinah.


>
> > There is no such entity as the earth goddess per se
>
> You're an atheist, I take it, or a convinced Christian. I would say, the
> gods and goddesses exist, but the labels (and genders) we put on them are
> cultural constructs.


Like I said, I prefer to name deities, and I named Demeter.


>
> > Sacrifice of male gods does in fact exist in European pagan antiquity but
> > from what I have seen the pattern is bovine rather than solar, the
> > sacrificial victim was often a bull, such as in the taurobolium associated
> > with Dionysus (similar name to Zeus in fact, who actually assumed the form
> > of a bull).
>
> The ballad Tam Lin seems to be a memory of an annual (or rather
> seven-yearly) sacrifice.


Seemingly so perhaps, but I'd need much more than that to be convinced. It's a lively ballad! :)

>
> > The men of leisure might have done as much harm as they did good because
> > in collecting folklore they could arguably have stamped their own
> > interpretation on it which may not have correlated to the thoughts of the
> > people actually practicing that folklore at the time.
>
> Yes. Incidentally, in Gaelic the sun and moon are both usually "she". In
> the Ancient Egyptian pantheon the Earth was a priapic male figure forever
> arching upwards into mountains as he tried to reach and mate with a female
> sky. John and Caitlin Matthews fall down in their analysis of the idea of
> personalised Sovereignty in British tradition when they try to find some
> very convoluted explanation for the Fisher King - they've started to think
> that Sovereignty as a personalised entity really *is* female, rather than
> that it is a neuter concept which is usually but not always presented as
> being female, and so they can't see that the Fisher King is just an unusual
> example of Soveriegnty being presented as male.
>



Oh my goodness, you'll get me going. There is a basis in 'documented fact' for a lot of this, old tales as documents that is, legends. For example the legend of Fionn and his deer wife

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fionn_mac_Cumhaill#Love_life

It's a motif which recurs and possibly draws in the ubiquitous stag motif, and we're maybe looking at Richard II?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ROln4ISlwKo/TH2vH9FanWI/AAAAAAAAF_o/GanCgMX1A9g/s1600/wiltback_big.jpg

Arthurian literature is teeming with white stags.