Another Picture of Richard

I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.

In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.

Hello, Just found out that Amazon are bringing out a new translation of Llull's book The Order of Chivalry soon, can be ordered for anyone interested. It's £ 16.99.
it should be an interesting read.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.
>
> In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.
>

I've seen the pictures and the knight does seem to have one shoulder
higher than the other. Problem is, the proportions in the art from
that time was usually not very accurate, so I tend to not place too
much reliability on them.

Gilda


On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:55 AM, hjnatdat wrote:

> I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for
> some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the
> knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just
> after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably
> like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that
> the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with
> the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that
> Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.
>
> In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the
> right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but
> interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone
> else seen the picture I mean? H.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Is it possible to share this picture (even a photo with a digital camera would be helpful) or point us to the image if it's already on-line?'

A J

--- In , "hjnatdat" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.
>
> In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.
>

> Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS
> the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce

I just assumed the artist was working from a description which said "good
legs, big chin" and they misunderstood what shape of big chin it was and
made him look like Desperate Dan.

I wasn't. I was just saying it 'could' be construed to be higher.



________________________________
From: Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 12:33
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 

I've seen the pictures and the knight does seem to have one shoulder
higher than the other. Problem is, the proportions in the art from
that time was usually not very accurate, so I tend to not place too
much reliability on them.

Gilda

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:55 AM, hjnatdat wrote:

> I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for
> some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the
> knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just
> after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably
> like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that
> the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with
> the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that
> Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.
>
> In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the
> right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but
> interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone
> else seen the picture I mean? H.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Somebody wrote:
> > Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce

Claire Jordan responded:
> I just assumed the artist was working from a description which said "good legs, big chin" and they misunderstood what shape of big chin it was and made him look like Desperate Dan.

Carol comments:

I don't know who Hughes is. I must somehow have missed part of this conversation. But did painters really paint from such descriptions? In any case, I don't recall any contemporary descriptions (as opposed to copies of lost original paintings) that depict him as having a big chin, nor would he have had a reputation for looking fierce at the time (that's Polydore Vergil's contribution to the legend, along with misinterpreting Rous's "curtam habiens faciem" to mean that Richard had a short face). And wasn't Richard a teenager at the time depicted in the painting as the artist surely would have known?

I think that the identification of the knight in doublet and hose as Richard has been made solely on the basis of the prominently displayed garter. He could as easily be Hastings, who would be the right age and may well have dressed in a manner more appropriate to a younger man. There's another man in the background (blue hat, brown robe) who seems to be wearing a garter and looks more like what we know of Richard (young, brown hair, somewhat short):

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward4wavrin.jpg

Carol

Do you know the date for the paining offhand?

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

> I don't recall any contemporary descriptions (as opposed to copies of lost
> original paintings) that depict him as having a big chin,

Yeah, but he did have one, if the reconstruction is accurate!

> nor would he have had a reputation for looking fierce at the time

I don't really see that character as looking fierce, though - more as if he
is concetrating hard on what's being said to him. I'd call it "intense"
rather than "fierce".

> I think that the identification of the knight in doublet and hose as
> Richard has been made solely on the basis of the prominently displayed
> garter. He could as easily be Hastings, who would be the right age and may
> well have dressed in a manner more appropriate to a younger man. There's
> another man in the background (blue hat, brown robe) who seems to be
> wearing a garter and looks more like what we know of Richard (young, brown
> hair, somewhat short):

The chap on the right, with the long robe and his back to the audience? I
agree the height is a better match. But at any rate he too is drawn with
the left shoulder apparently slightly higher. It could just be how he's
drawn - but it certainly doesn't suggest that his *right* shoulder was known
to be higher, and the only image which shows a marked imbalance is the SoA
one, in which his left shoulder is very clearly higher. [Although, just to
complicate matters, it could be a mirror-image version of the putative
original, switched round to make a more pleasing pattern of pairs of
monarchs looking left and right.]

> Do you know the date for the paining offhand?

This site
http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.

Hi Hilary, can you give us the link? Or upload the pic? I can't find it in  google search.




________________________________
From: hjnatdat <hjnatdat@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: Another Picture of Richard


 
I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.

In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.

It's in the book by Hughes. I'll see if I can scan it and if it's copyright free (I could probably send it just to you). As an artist you'll know all about copyright so I can probably get round it if I do the latter.  Back to you tomorrow. H 



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 18:36
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard


 

Hi Hilary, can you give us the link? Or upload the pic? I can't find it in  google search.

________________________________
From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:55 AM
Subject: Another Picture of Richard


 
I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.

In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.

Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002).  A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library  (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny.  Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 17:49
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 


Somebody wrote:
> > Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce

Claire Jordan responded:
> I just assumed the artist was working from a description which said "good legs, big chin" and they misunderstood what shape of big chin it was and made him look like Desperate Dan.

Carol comments:

I don't know who Hughes is. I must somehow have missed part of this conversation. But did painters really paint from such descriptions? In any case, I don't recall any contemporary descriptions (as opposed to copies of lost original paintings) that depict him as having a big chin, nor would he have had a reputation for looking fierce at the time (that's Polydore Vergil's contribution to the legend, along with misinterpreting Rous's "curtam habiens faciem" to mean that Richard had a short face). And wasn't Richard a teenager at the time depicted in the painting as the artist surely would have known?

I think that the identification of the knight in doublet and hose as Richard has been made solely on the basis of the prominently displayed garter. He could as easily be Hastings, who would be the right age and may well have dressed in a manner more appropriate to a younger man. There's another man in the background (blue hat, brown robe) who seems to be wearing a garter and looks more like what we know of Richard (young, brown hair, somewhat short):

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward4wavrin.jpg

Carol

Do you know the date for the paining offhand?

Carol

There are already a number of illustrations that come up if one searches Images on Google (don't remember for sure but think I was searching on the title of Lull's book). So if the image in question is "out there" already, perhaps you could just "send" everyone in the right direction. And would remove concerns about copyright? It's very hard to follow such a discussion without knowing which image (if any) is the right one.

A J

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> It's in the book by Hughes. I'll see if I can scan it and if it's copyright free (I could probably send it just to you). As an artist you'll know all about copyright so I can probably get round it if I do the latter.  Back to you tomorrow. H 
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 18:36
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>  
>
> Hi Hilary, can you give us the link? Or upload the pic? I can't find it in  google search.
>
> ________________________________
> From: hjnatdat mailto:hjnatdat%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 6:55 AM
> Subject: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>  
> I was just looking through Hughes's Arthurian Myths and Alchemy for some information when it fell open at a page which claims that the knight depicted in Lull's Book of the Order of Chivalry written just after Picquigny,is Richard. And I have to say it looks remarkably like him (and the facial re-construction). Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce because he is cross that Edward is deserting the ideas of chivalry.
>
> In Lull's book the knight definitely has a straight back, but the right shoulder could be higher than the left. It's a dense but interesting book. I shall devote a bit more time to it. Has anyone else seen the picture I mean? H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002).  A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library  (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny.  Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
>
Carol responds:

Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585

I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.

(It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard


> http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585

Hum. Mebbe. Of course, some of these could presumably also be George, who
presumably looked somewhat like Richard, only older.

Carol earlier:
> > Do you know the date for the painring offhand?

Claire:
> This site
> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.

Carol again:

Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg

Not, I take it, a handsome man!

Carol

Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > > Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
>
> Claire:
> > This site
> > http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
>
> Carol
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It's in the book by Hughes. I'll see if I can scan it and if it's copyright free (I could probably send it just to you). As an artist you'll know all about copyright so I can probably get round it if I do the latter.  Back to you tomorrow. H 

Carol responds:

I included the link in another post, but I'll repeat it here:

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585

If this is the picture that you had in mind, I don't think it's Richard, for reasons that I stated in the other post.

Carol

I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!

On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:

> Carol earlier:
> > > Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
>
> Claire:
> > This site
> > http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
>
> Carol again:
>
> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
>
> Carol
>
>

Lololol!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>> Carol earlier:
>>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
>>
>> Claire:
>>> This site
>>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
>>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
>>
>> Carol again:
>>
>> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>>
>> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Lololol!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >> Carol earlier:
> >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> >>
> >> Claire:
> >>> This site
> >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> >>
> >> Carol again:
> >>
> >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> >>
> >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> >>
> >> Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I just dipped back into the Hughes book to look up the picture we have
been discussing, which does indeed look like the reconstruction, and
while visiting decided to look up what he has to say about Richard.
I am still in a state of shock!
The phrase that first grabbed my attention was:-
"Contrary to the popular view of historians, Richard was not taken by
surprise by Edward's death. The king's physical decline in the preceding
years was well known."
Hughes postulates that Richard had been planning a bod for the crown for
years, seeing himself as "the virtuous chosen king of an exiled people
punished for their sins" based onprophecise he says Richard was well
aware of fromhis volume of Geoffrey of Monmouth. In this king Arthur of
kegend is portrayed as the Boar of Cornwall, and he goes on to quote
numerous prophecies he says Richard would have seen as depicting him,
most notably one of Becket's "Becket asked Our Lady wheteher a Boar
shall come from Britain she said yes and the Boar shall tumble France
and not rest till its tusks are grown and he shall be stirred up by
Berwick." "In a commonplace book originating from the honour of
Richmond, the centre of Gloucester's power base, from where he made his
bid for the throne, there is a prophetic vision of the defeat of the
Scots and the French by a British hero."
Hughes also declares that Clarence's death, "drowning in a butt of
malmsey" Hughes declares it as fact not myth or legend, backed up by no
source, "may have been the result of Edward's narcissistic resentment of
a charismatic brother", the favourite of their mother.
Richard was not seen as a threat to Edward because he "did not have
Clarence's looks or charm. According to Mancini Richard was shocked to
hear of his brother's death and kept his grief hidden. Nevertheless he
was to some extent implicated, and if there was a dark, demonic force at
work from the time of Clarence's murder" [not execution you note] " it
was Richard. Duke of Gliucester, not Edward. Gloucestere must have been
aware of the pre-contract and would have seen it as the sins of his
brothers coming to light, the approachof divine retribution. Richard had
been waiting in the wings since late 1475...waiting for a sign that he
was the chosen redeemer."
With the sole exception of any physical deformity Hughes follows exactly
More and Shakespeare, backing up his viewpoint with nothing but
prophecies and dreams. Yes he even quotes "A prophecy that says G of
Edward's heirs the murderer shall be".
Perhaps this is why the opening chapters of his book are so dense, to
make sure any Ricardian readers, or anyone with any common sense, would
not get to the end chapters and come across this abject nonsense, an
attempt to make the legend sound plausible. If you consider magic and
prophesy plausible that is!
He has the nerve to call himself a serious historian yet bases his
theories on no factual sources except Mancini and Commynes.
And to think I paid 30UKP for this!
Paul
still shaking with anger!



On 18/02/2013 23:15, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002). A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny. Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):
>
> http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585
>
> I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.
>
> (It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

That's why I didn't quote from it! It's used a lot I believe by those into the Woodville witchcraft. What is interesting though is that he implies he believes in Edward's illegitimacy and this is 2002, years' before the Rouen discovery. He of course cites the rumours of put about by Clarence and Cis and says that Richard believed he had a god-given right to rule. I don't think he got this from More or Shakespeare but from his interpretation of the prayers in Richard's books, which he claims, show a troubled mind. That was the subject of his other book the Religious Life of Richard III, which I've not read, but have read the reviews.
 
Like all books, I think you have to take a deep breath, dip in and sometimes you find something - like the picture.
 
If you really want to shake with rage read Ackroyd on More. Now he really has got the Shakespeare bug!  H
 
  

________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 8:42
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


 


I just dipped back into the Hughes book to look up the picture we have
been discussing, which does indeed look like the reconstruction, and
while visiting decided to look up what he has to say about Richard.
I am still in a state of shock!
The phrase that first grabbed my attention was:-
"Contrary to the popular view of historians, Richard was not taken by
surprise by Edward's death. The king's physical decline in the preceding
years was well known."
Hughes postulates that Richard had been planning a bod for the crown for
years, seeing himself as "the virtuous chosen king of an exiled people
punished for their sins" based onprophecise he says Richard was well
aware of fromhis volume of Geoffrey of Monmouth. In this king Arthur of
kegend is portrayed as the Boar of Cornwall, and he goes on to quote
numerous prophecies he says Richard would have seen as depicting him,
most notably one of Becket's "Becket asked Our Lady wheteher a Boar
shall come from Britain she said yes and the Boar shall tumble France
and not rest till its tusks are grown and he shall be stirred up by
Berwick." "In a commonplace book originating from the honour of
Richmond, the centre of Gloucester's power base, from where he made his
bid for the throne, there is a prophetic vision of the defeat of the
Scots and the French by a British hero."
Hughes also declares that Clarence's death, "drowning in a butt of
malmsey" Hughes declares it as fact not myth or legend, backed up by no
source, "may have been the result of Edward's narcissistic resentment of
a charismatic brother", the favourite of their mother.
Richard was not seen as a threat to Edward because he "did not have
Clarence's looks or charm. According to Mancini Richard was shocked to
hear of his brother's death and kept his grief hidden. Nevertheless he
was to some extent implicated, and if there was a dark, demonic force at
work from the time of Clarence's murder" [not execution you note] " it
was Richard. Duke of Gliucester, not Edward. Gloucestere must have been
aware of the pre-contract and would have seen it as the sins of his
brothers coming to light, the approachof divine retribution. Richard had
been waiting in the wings since late 1475...waiting for a sign that he
was the chosen redeemer."
With the sole exception of any physical deformity Hughes follows exactly
More and Shakespeare, backing up his viewpoint with nothing but
prophecies and dreams. Yes he even quotes "A prophecy that says G of
Edward's heirs the murderer shall be".
Perhaps this is why the opening chapters of his book are so dense, to
make sure any Ricardian readers, or anyone with any common sense, would
not get to the end chapters and come across this abject nonsense, an
attempt to make the legend sound plausible. If you consider magic and
prophesy plausible that is!
He has the nerve to call himself a serious historian yet bases his
theories on no factual sources except Mancini and Commynes.
And to think I paid 30UKP for this!
Paul
still shaking with anger!

On 18/02/2013 23:15, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002). A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny. Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):
>
> http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585
>
> I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.
>
> (It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

It's Yahoo Carol I agree! The picture in Lull's book has Richard in a sober long robe and with not such a jutting chin- no problem. I said I was suprised that the guy we'd all thought of as Hastings in the Waurin picture was being identified by Hughes as Richard. Does that make sense?



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 18 February 2013, 23:15
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 



Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002).  A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library  (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny.  Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
>
Carol responds:

Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):

http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585

I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.

(It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)

Carol

There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.



________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 3:37
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 

"Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"

--- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Lololol!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> >
> >> Carol earlier:
> >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> >>
> >> Claire:
> >>> This site
> >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> >>
> >> Carol again:
> >>
> >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> >>
> >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> >>
> >> Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

I have now uploaded the picture and I'm sure you'll all undertake not to use it for your next Ricardian masterpiece.

The caption beside it says 'a hermit instructs a knight, who bears a resemblance to images of Richard Duke of Gloucester that appear in other manuscripts in Edward's library, about the principles of chivalry that have been abandoned at picquigny.'

I never paid that much attention to it before but it does, to me, look much like the facial re-construction. Or is it just me? H.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>  
>
> "Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Lololol!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@ > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carol earlier:
> > >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> > >>
> > >> Claire:
> > >>> This site
> > >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> > >>
> > >> Carol again:
> > >>
> > >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> > >>
> > >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've uploaded mine now. A bit more modest.  H.



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 0:58
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


 

Lololol!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com> wrote:

> I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" mailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.commailto:bandyoi%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Carol earlier:
>>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
>>
>> Claire:
>>> This site
>>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
>>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
>>
>> Carol again:
>>
>> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>>
>> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Carol said:

 He could as easily be Hastings, who would be the right age and may well have dressed in a manner more appropriate to a younger man.
 
 
Liz replied: 
 
In a more recent time no doubt he would be driving a sports car and sporting a medallion?

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:41 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


> It's Yahoo Carol I agree! The picture in Lull's book has Richard in a
> sober long robe and with not such a jutting chin- no problem. I said I was
> suprised that the guy we'd all thought of as Hastings in the Waurin
> picture was being identified by Hughes as Richard. Does that make sense?

He really doesn't look like the drawing of Hastings as a manticore - the
nose could pass but the overall shape of the face seems wrong as
manticore-guy has quite a long and bony face, and also apparently quite fair
and floppy hair. Was George at Pequigny (have I spelled that right?)?
Could it be George? I know he looks quite old but if the "butt of malmsey"
thing wasn't literally true then presumably it means George was a drunk, and
that has quite an ageing effect. The intent or fierce face could be
intended as beery belligerance. [Although they would probably all have been
a tiny bit squiffy most the time, since people commonly drank small beer
instead of water.]

Hilary
You sound disappointed !
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> "Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Lololol!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carol earlier:
> > >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> > >>
> > >> Claire:
> > >>> This site
> > >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> > >>
> > >> Carol again:
> > >>
> > >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> > >>
> > >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Wel sorry to put a dampener on all the speculation!



________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 

Hilary
You sound disappointed !
G

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hilary Jones hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> "Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Lololol!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carol earlier:
> > >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> > >>
> > >> Claire:
> > >>> This site
> > >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> > >>
> > >> Carol again:
> > >>
> > >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> > >>
> > >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> It's Yahoo Carol I agree! The picture in Lull's book has Richard in a sober long robe and with not such a jutting chin- no problem. I said I was suprised that the guy we'd all thought of as Hastings in the Waurin picture was being identified by Hughes as Richard. Does that make sense?

Carol responds:

So you agree that the guy with the jutting chin in the de Wavrin painting is Hastings (which I think is evidenced by the *face* on the lion drawing even though of course it's a caricature), but Hughes thinks the jutting-chin guy is Richard. (So, apparently, do a lot of people based solely on the garter.)

And evidently, using the British Library number you posted, I linked to the wrong picture (the one of the hermit and the squire). Here it is again, just to be sure: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585


What's the "right" picture if that's the wrong one (to me, it doesn't look like Richard at all), and what does Hughes say to link it with him? Not that I believe word one that Hughes says after Paul's description of his views.

Carol

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
Carol responds:

She's referring to the picture of Hastings as a lion that I posted. I wanted people to look at the *face* (minus fangs) to show that the ugly man often referred to as Richard in the de Wavrin painting is probably Hastings. Here it is again (look at the face, ladies. The face!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg

I suspect that Hughes saw a resemblance between the man in the hermit and squire picture and the man that he thought was Richard in the de Wavrin painting. I also see that resemblance, but none in either painting to the reconstructed Richard.

Carol

We were talking about Hastings representation as a lion. Or something.

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:53 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 3:37
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> "Welcome to Medieval World, folks! I'm Little John, and this is me codpiece. Handsome, eh? You should see what's underneath!"
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Lololol!
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Feb 18, 2013, at 7:56 PM, Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > > I thought the same, but did not comment. I think we may be like minded.....watch out!
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Good God! He has a very high opinion of his , umm, manhood.......!
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On Feb 18, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@... > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carol earlier:
> > >>>> Do you know the date for the painring offhand?
> > >>
> > >> Claire:
> > >>> This site
> > >>> http://www.optimamagazine.co.uk/read/leisure/exhibitions/689-a-treasury-of-history
> > >>> says c. 1475, making Richard 22/23.
> > >>
> > >> Carol again:
> > >>
> > >> Right. As I said in another post, the guy with the double chin can't be Richard at that age (or any other). I still suspect that it's Hastings, but Google is not helping me find any sources which make that identification. However, we do know that Hastings was about twenty years older than Richard, and the man in question appears to be in his late thirties or early forties. Compare this picture of Hastings as a lion from 1466-70:
> > >>
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
> > >>
> > >> Not, I take it, a handsome man!
> > >>
> > >> Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

I do see the resemblance between all three images. But not with the reconstruction.......

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 11:55 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> She's referring to the picture of Hastings as a lion that I posted. I wanted people to look at the *face* (minus fangs) to show that the ugly man often referred to as Richard in the de Wavrin painting is probably Hastings. Here it is again (look at the face, ladies. The face!):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> I suspect that Hughes saw a resemblance between the man in the hermit and squire picture and the man that he thought was Richard in the de Wavrin painting. I also see that resemblance, but none in either painting to the reconstructed Richard.
>
> Carol
>
>

I see it in the hermit picture but that's just me. I wouldn't dismiss all Hughes's work, it is a lot more scholarly in terms of source citation, than say, Hicks. He just comes at it from a different angle and we don't agree. That doesn't mean the total content of his books is worthless. We have so little I think we have to read everything, take on board some and dismiss other bits. For example, Susan Higginbotham totally dismisses Weightman's interpretation of Cecily's will, but doesn't really say why. Just my point of view.  As I said to Paul, if you want to get really cross read Ackroyd on More.


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:55
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 


Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>
Carol responds:

She's referring to the picture of Hastings as a lion that I posted. I wanted people to look at the *face* (minus fangs) to show that the ugly man often referred to as Richard in the de Wavrin painting is probably Hastings. Here it is again (look at the face, ladies. The face!):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg

I suspect that Hughes saw a resemblance between the man in the hermit and squire picture and the man that he thought was Richard in the de Wavrin painting. I also see that resemblance, but none in either painting to the reconstructed Richard.

Carol

Doesn't Ackroyd at least debunk the saintly man image of More? Chasing
his servants around the garden whip in hand etc.
Paul

On 19/02/2013 17:22, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I see it in the hermit picture but that's just me. I wouldn't dismiss all Hughes's work, it is a lot more scholarly in terms of source citation, than say, Hicks. He just comes at it from a different angle and we don't agree. That doesn't mean the total content of his books is worthless. We have so little I think we have to read everything, take on board some and dismiss other bits. For example, Susan Higginbotham totally dismisses Weightman's interpretation of Cecily's will, but doesn't really say why. Just my point of view. As I said to Paul, if you want to get really cross read Ackroyd on More.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> She's referring to the picture of Hastings as a lion that I posted. I wanted people to look at the *face* (minus fangs) to show that the ugly man often referred to as Richard in the de Wavrin painting is probably Hastings. Here it is again (look at the face, ladies. The face!):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> I suspect that Hughes saw a resemblance between the man in the hermit and squire picture and the man that he thought was Richard in the de Wavrin painting. I also see that resemblance, but none in either painting to the reconstructed Richard.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul, thanks for the excerpt! It's mine turn to shake with laughter at the incredible nonsense!

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

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:33 AM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

> That's why I didn't quote from it! It's used a lot I believe by those into the Woodville witchcraft. What is interesting though is that he implies he believes in Edward's illegitimacy and this is 2002, years' before the Rouen discovery. He of course cites the rumours of put about by Clarence and Cis and says that Richard believed he had a god-given right to rule. I don't think he got this from More or Shakespeare but from his interpretation of the prayers in Richard's books, which he claims, show a troubled mind. That was the subject of his other book the Religious Life of Richard III, which I've not read, but have read the reviews.
>
> Like all books, I think you have to take a deep breath, dip in and sometimes you find something - like the picture.
>
> If you really want to shake with rage read Ackroyd on More. Now he really has got the Shakespeare bug! H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Cc: paul.bale@...
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 8:42
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> I just dipped back into the Hughes book to look up the picture we have
> been discussing, which does indeed look like the reconstruction, and
> while visiting decided to look up what he has to say about Richard.
> I am still in a state of shock!
> The phrase that first grabbed my attention was:-
> "Contrary to the popular view of historians, Richard was not taken by
> surprise by Edward's death. The king's physical decline in the preceding
> years was well known."
> Hughes postulates that Richard had been planning a bod for the crown for
> years, seeing himself as "the virtuous chosen king of an exiled people
> punished for their sins" based onprophecise he says Richard was well
> aware of fromhis volume of Geoffrey of Monmouth. In this king Arthur of
> kegend is portrayed as the Boar of Cornwall, and he goes on to quote
> numerous prophecies he says Richard would have seen as depicting him,
> most notably one of Becket's "Becket asked Our Lady wheteher a Boar
> shall come from Britain she said yes and the Boar shall tumble France
> and not rest till its tusks are grown and he shall be stirred up by
> Berwick." "In a commonplace book originating from the honour of
> Richmond, the centre of Gloucester's power base, from where he made his
> bid for the throne, there is a prophetic vision of the defeat of the
> Scots and the French by a British hero."
> Hughes also declares that Clarence's death, "drowning in a butt of
> malmsey" Hughes declares it as fact not myth or legend, backed up by no
> source, "may have been the result of Edward's narcissistic resentment of
> a charismatic brother", the favourite of their mother.
> Richard was not seen as a threat to Edward because he "did not have
> Clarence's looks or charm. According to Mancini Richard was shocked to
> hear of his brother's death and kept his grief hidden. Nevertheless he
> was to some extent implicated, and if there was a dark, demonic force at
> work from the time of Clarence's murder" [not execution you note] " it
> was Richard. Duke of Gliucester, not Edward. Gloucestere must have been
> aware of the pre-contract and would have seen it as the sins of his
> brothers coming to light, the approachof divine retribution. Richard had
> been waiting in the wings since late 1475...waiting for a sign that he
> was the chosen redeemer."
> With the sole exception of any physical deformity Hughes follows exactly
> More and Shakespeare, backing up his viewpoint with nothing but
> prophecies and dreams. Yes he even quotes "A prophecy that says G of
> Edward's heirs the murderer shall be".
> Perhaps this is why the opening chapters of his book are so dense, to
> make sure any Ricardian readers, or anyone with any common sense, would
> not get to the end chapters and come across this abject nonsense, an
> attempt to make the legend sound plausible. If you consider magic and
> prophesy plausible that is!
> He has the nerve to call himself a serious historian yet bases his
> theories on no factual sources except Mancini and Commynes.
> And to think I paid 30UKP for this!
> Paul
> still shaking with anger!
>
> On 18/02/2013 23:15, justcarol67 wrote:
> >
> > Hilary Jones wrote:
> >> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002). A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny. Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
> >>
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):
> >
> > http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585
> >
> > I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.
> >
> > (It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard

> We were talking about Hastings representation as a lion. Or something.

Manticore - it was his badge. But personally I don't think short-tunic-guy
looks any more like Hastings than like Richard. Manticore-Hastings has
quite a long, bony face and floppy fair hair. I think short-tunic-guy is
probqably George.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I see it in the hermit picture but that's just me. I wouldn't dismiss all Hughes's work, it is a lot more scholarly in terms of source citation, than say, Hicks. He just comes at it from a different angle and we don't agree. That doesn't mean the total content of his books is worthless. We have so little I think we have to read everything, take on board some and dismiss other bits. For example, Susan Higginbotham totally dismisses Weightman's interpretation of Cecily's will, but doesn't really say why. Just my point of view.  As I said to Paul, if you want to get really cross read Ackroyd on More.

Carol responds:

The last thing I want right now is another book that makes me cross. Lucky for me, "Royal Blood" arrived today! I've put it face down so that I don't have to look at the Millais painting again while I attempt to work and catch up on posting at the same time.

BTW, I wanted to mention another painting of Richard made at a slightly later date by a less skilled artist:

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rivers.jpg

Not very flattering of anybody, including Edward IV, but it shows Richard in royal robes similar to those worn by Edward in the other painting, which depicts a similar occasion. Not that it helps us much with what he and the others looked like, but it may give an indication of how he dressed on ceremonial occasions and of hair color, etc. (Just about everyone, including little Prince Edward, is slope-shouldered, so that doesn't help.)

Carol

 
I'm a bit puzzled by this.  As far as I'm aware, the Boar was the device of Gorlois of Cornwall, whose wife Ygraine was coveted by Uther, who caused his death so he could get her.  Ygraine of course was Arthur's mother.    Arthur's symbol is usually the Bear, not the Boar.
 
I've got a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouth at work (for light reading ha ha) so could check whether it was Geoffrey who said that or this guy Hughes who has made a mistake.


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 8:42
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 

I just dipped back into the Hughes book to look up the picture we have
been discussing, which does indeed look like the reconstruction, and
while visiting decided to look up what he has to say about Richard.
I am still in a state of shock!
The phrase that first grabbed my attention was:-
"Contrary to the popular view of historians, Richard was not taken by
surprise by Edward's death. The king's physical decline in the preceding
years was well known."
Hughes postulates that Richard had been planning a bod for the crown for
years, seeing himself as "the virtuous chosen king of an exiled people
punished for their sins" based onprophecise he says Richard was well
aware of fromhis volume of Geoffrey of Monmouth. In this king Arthur of
kegend is portrayed as the Boar of Cornwall, and he goes on to quote
numerous prophecies he says Richard would have seen as depicting him,
most notably one of Becket's "Becket asked Our Lady wheteher a Boar
shall come from Britain she said yes and the Boar shall tumble France
and not rest till its tusks are grown and he shall be stirred up by
Berwick." "In a commonplace book originating from the honour of
Richmond, the centre of Gloucester's power base, from where he made his
bid for the throne, there is a prophetic vision of the defeat of the
Scots and the French by a British hero."
Hughes also declares that Clarence's death, "drowning in a butt of
malmsey" Hughes declares it as fact not myth or legend, backed up by no
source, "may have been the result of Edward's narcissistic resentment of
a charismatic brother", the favourite of their mother.
Richard was not seen as a threat to Edward because he "did not have
Clarence's looks or charm. According to Mancini Richard was shocked to
hear of his brother's death and kept his grief hidden. Nevertheless he
was to some extent implicated, and if there was a dark, demonic force at
work from the time of Clarence's murder" [not execution you note] " it
was Richard. Duke of Gliucester, not Edward. Gloucestere must have been
aware of the pre-contract and would have seen it as the sins of his
brothers coming to light, the approachof divine retribution. Richard had
been waiting in the wings since late 1475...waiting for a sign that he
was the chosen redeemer."
With the sole exception of any physical deformity Hughes follows exactly
More and Shakespeare, backing up his viewpoint with nothing but
prophecies and dreams. Yes he even quotes "A prophecy that says G of
Edward's heirs the murderer shall be".
Perhaps this is why the opening chapters of his book are so dense, to
make sure any Ricardian readers, or anyone with any common sense, would
not get to the end chapters and come across this abject nonsense, an
attempt to make the legend sound plausible. If you consider magic and
prophesy plausible that is!
He has the nerve to call himself a serious historian yet bases his
theories on no factual sources except Mancini and Commynes.
And to think I paid 30UKP for this!
Paul
still shaking with anger!

On 18/02/2013 23:15, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>> Book - Jonathan Hughes Arthurian Myths and Alchemy (about Edward IV 2002). A dense but serious book.  Hughes is a reputable historian who has written on the Religious Life of Richard III. Lull's book of the Order of Chivalry (13th century) which contains this picture printed by Caxton is in the British Library (Royal 14 E 11 fo 338). Late 1470s according to Hughes, who is writing about Richard's reaction to Edward's desertion of chivalric principles at Picquigny. Does this help? Richard would have nearly 23 at Picquigny. I know the Hastings identification too, which is why I was surprised. H
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> Is this the picture you're referring to? The caption says that it's a hermit instructing a squire (though he looks more than old enough to be a knight; Richard, of course, was knighted at age nine or so):
>
> http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=48585
>
> I just checked the date on the de Wavrin painting (c. 1475), which means that it was contemporary with the Treaty of Picquigny and therefore probably painted from life (rather than from a description of a man with good legs and a large chin, as suggested by another poster). And Richard would at no point have had a double chin, especially not in his early twenties. You seem to be saying that you agree with the Hastings identification, but I can't tell for sure. I'm also not sure what you were surprised by.
>
> (It's all Yahoo's fault, you know. Too hard to follow top-posted threads!)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: liz williams
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


> I'm a bit puzzled by this. As far as I'm aware, the Boar was the device
of Gorlois of Cornwall, whose wife Ygraine was coveted by Uther, who caused
his death so he could get her. Ygraine of course was Arthur's mother.
Arthur's symbol is usually the Bear, not the Boar.

Arthur famously *fought* a giant boar called Twrch Twyth, who for some
unexplained reason had a set of hairdressing equipment between his ears.

Which one is Richard? The blue robe or the kneeling red robed one?

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 19, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
> >
> > I see it in the hermit picture but that's just me. I wouldn't dismiss all Hughes's work, it is a lot more scholarly in terms of source citation, than say, Hicks. He just comes at it from a different angle and we don't agree. That doesn't mean the total content of his books is worthless. We have so little I think we have to read everything, take on board some and dismiss other bits. For example, Susan Higginbotham totally dismisses Weightman's interpretation of Cecily's will, but doesn't really say why. Just my point of view. As I said to Paul, if you want to get really cross read Ackroyd on More.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The last thing I want right now is another book that makes me cross. Lucky for me, "Royal Blood" arrived today! I've put it face down so that I don't have to look at the Millais painting again while I attempt to work and catch up on posting at the same time.
>
> BTW, I wanted to mention another painting of Richard made at a slightly later date by a less skilled artist:
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rivers.jpg
>
> Not very flattering of anybody, including Edward IV, but it shows Richard in royal robes similar to those worn by Edward in the other painting, which depicts a similar occasion. Not that it helps us much with what he and the others looked like, but it may give an indication of how he dressed on ceremonial occasions and of hair color, etc. (Just about everyone, including little Prince Edward, is slope-shouldered, so that doesn't help.)
>
> Carol
>
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Which one is Richard? The blue robe or the kneeling red robed one?

Carol responds:

The one in the blue (velvet?) robe with ermine trim (royal robes similar to those that Edward is wearing in the other picture). The kneeling man in red is Anthony Woodville, presenting his book to Edward. You might check for some resemblance between him and his sister, Elizabeth Woodville, the only woman in the picture.

http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rivers.jpg

Carol

Thank you.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:11 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

>
>
> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Which one is Richard? The blue robe or the kneeling red robed one?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> The one in the blue (velvet?) robe with ermine trim (royal robes similar to those that Edward is wearing in the other picture). The kneeling man in red is Anthony Woodville, presenting his book to Edward. You might check for some resemblance between him and his sister, Elizabeth Woodville, the only woman in the picture.
>
> http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/rivers.jpg
>
> Carol
>
>

He does indeed. I thought he might be kinder to Richard but alas - let's just start by saying he talks about the malevolent hunchbacked king.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Cc: paul.bale@...
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 18:30
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


 

Doesn't Ackroyd at least debunk the saintly man image of More? Chasing
his servants around the garden whip in hand etc.
Paul

On 19/02/2013 17:22, Hilary Jones wrote:
> I see it in the hermit picture but that's just me. I wouldn't dismiss all Hughes's work, it is a lot more scholarly in terms of source citation, than say, Hicks. He just comes at it from a different angle and we don't agree. That doesn't mean the total content of his books is worthless. We have so little I think we have to read everything, take on board some and dismiss other bits. For example, Susan Higginbotham totally dismisses Weightman's interpretation of Cecily's will, but doesn't really say why. Just my point of view. As I said to Paul, if you want to get really cross read Ackroyd on More.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 16:55
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
>
>
> Hilary Jones wrote:
>> There's no codpiece in my picture. It's a man in a long gown talking to a hermit.
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> She's referring to the picture of Hastings as a lion that I posted. I wanted people to look at the *face* (minus fangs) to show that the ugly man often referred to as Richard in the de Wavrin painting is probably Hastings. Here it is again (look at the face, ladies. The face!):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> I suspect that Hughes saw a resemblance between the man in the hermit and squire picture and the man that he thought was Richard in the de Wavrin painting. I also see that resemblance, but none in either painting to the reconstructed Richard.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

What?  Scissors or a comb?



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 19 February 2013, 22:16
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard

 
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Cc: mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard

> I'm a bit puzzled by this. As far as I'm aware, the Boar was the device
of Gorlois of Cornwall, whose wife Ygraine was coveted by Uther, who caused
his death so he could get her. Ygraine of course was Arthur's mother.
Arthur's symbol is usually the Bear, not the Boar.

Arthur famously *fought* a giant boar called Twrch Twyth, who for some
unexplained reason had a set of hairdressing equipment between his ears.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard


> > Arthur famously *fought* a giant boar called Twrch Twyth, who for some
unexplained reason had a set of hairdressing equipment between his ears.

> What? Scissors or a comb?

Both, iirc. A lot of Celtic folklore reads as though the original author
had been at the dodgy mushrooms. There's one story which begins with a long
passage about a farmer hiring a wren as a farm labourer, which is totally
unexplained, nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story and never
mentioned again.

In the novel "The Once and Future King," there is a marvelous boar hunt with Wart (King Arthur). Tim White, the author, was an expert hunter, falconer, angler, you name it. For those of you need a great novel about knights of old - this is it. Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
> > > Arthur famously *fought* a giant boar called Twrch Twyth, who for some
> unexplained reason had a set of hairdressing equipment between his ears.
>
> > What? Scissors or a comb?
>
> Both, iirc. A lot of Celtic folklore reads as though the original author
> had been at the dodgy mushrooms. There's one story which begins with a long
> passage about a farmer hiring a wren as a farm labourer, which is totally
> unexplained, nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story and never
> mentioned again.
>

Oh Maire, one of my favorite books of all time. I insisted my students read it, when I was an English teacher. It is simply marvelous.....

On Feb 20, 2013, at 4:58 PM, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland@...>> wrote:



In the novel "The Once and Future King," there is a marvelous boar hunt with Wart (King Arthur). Tim White, the author, was an expert hunter, falconer, angler, you name it. For those of you need a great novel about knights of old - this is it. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
> > > Arthur famously *fought* a giant boar called Twrch Twyth, who for some
> unexplained reason had a set of hairdressing equipment between his ears.
>
> > What? Scissors or a comb?
>
> Both, iirc. A lot of Celtic folklore reads as though the original author
> had been at the dodgy mushrooms. There's one story which begins with a long
> passage about a farmer hiring a wren as a farm labourer, which is totally
> unexplained, nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the story and never
> mentioned again.
>

We discussed this on the forum a couple of times. The individual who has usually been identified as Richard in the Wavrin picture (Hughes was only following previous writers) is clearly middle-aged, wrinkly and slightly grizzled, and there is in fact another man in the same picture wearing a garter; it's just not so obvious because he is wearing a long gown and the garter only peeps through the side slit. This second Garter knight is a young man, and Richard would have been only 18 when he was in Burgundy. Also, we know from Von Poppelau, and now also from the skeleton, that Richard had very slender limbs, whilst the middle-aged Garter knight in the picture has very beefy thighs and buttocks. All in all, if anyone in that picture was meant to represent Richard, it is the young man in the gown. The older man may be Hastings.
Marie


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > Hughes also claims that the depiction of Richard in the Waurin picture IS
> > the knight with the garter and he is made to look fierce
>
> I just assumed the artist was working from a description which said "good
> legs, big chin" and they misunderstood what shape of big chin it was and
> made him look like Desperate Dan.
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
> > We were talking about Hastings representation as a lion. Or something.
>
> Manticore - it was his badge. But personally I don't think short-tunic-guy
> looks any more like Hastings than like Richard. Manticore-Hastings has
> quite a long, bony face and floppy fair hair. I think short-tunic-guy is
> probqably George.
>

If the figures in the picture represent anyone and are not just stock figures of courtiers, it would be those who were in Burgundy with Edward in 1470-71, which would rule George out.
Marue

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 5:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
> > "We were talking about Hastings representation as a lion. Or something.
>
> Manticore - it was his badge. But personally I don't think short-tunic-guy
> looks any more like Hastings than like Richard. Manticore-Hastings has
> quite a long, bony face and floppy fair hair."

Well, as a manticore he has a lion's mane - doesn't mean he had that in life. Also, I notice Hastings' year of death is included in the picture, which evidently means it was not taken from life. Do we have a date for this document?
Marie

From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard


> If the figures in the picture represent anyone and are not just stock
> figures of courtiers, it would be those who were in Burgundy with Edward
> in 1470-71, which would rule George out.

Right, ta. Well, it still doesn't look much more like manticore-guy than it
does like Richard. How many garter knights were in the area at that time?
Are Richard and Hastings the only options?

Marie wrote:
> Well, as a manticore he has a lion's mane - doesn't mean he had that in life. Also, I notice Hastings' year of death is included in the picture, which evidently means it was not taken from life. Do we have a date for this document?

Carol responds:

If the death date is there, it must have been added later as the drawing is from a collection of heraldic badges dated 1466-70.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:39 AM
Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard



Marie wrote:
> > Well, as a manticore he has a lion's mane - doesn't mean he had that in
> > life. Also, I notice Hastings' year of death is included in the picture,
> > which evidently means it was not taken from life. Do we have a date for
> > this document?

Carol responds:

> If the death date is there, it must have been added later as the drawing
> is from a collection of heraldic badges dated 1466-70.

Right, so it's contemporary. And that fair floppy fringe doesn't look like
part of the lion's mane - it looks like a human hairdo which has been merged
into the lion's mane.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 9:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Another Picture of Richard
>
>
> > If the figures in the picture represent anyone and are not just stock
> > figures of courtiers, it would be those who were in Burgundy with Edward
> > in 1470-71, which would rule George out.
>
> Right, ta. Well, it still doesn't look much more like manticore-guy than it
> does like Richard. How many garter knights were in the area at that time?
> Are Richard and Hastings the only options?
>

They may hve been the only Garter knights with Edward in Burgundy - I'm not sure. Anne Sutton & Livia Visser-Fuchs have argued that these are just stock figures of courtiers, not portraits.
Marie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Well, as a manticore he has a lion's mane - doesn't mean he had that in life. Also, I notice Hastings' year of death is included in the picture, which evidently means it was not taken from life. Do we have a date for this document?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If the death date is there, it must have been added later as the drawing is from a collection of heraldic badges dated 1466-70.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:William_Hastings,_1st_Baron_Hastings.jpeg
>
> Carol
>


Sounds reasonable. Thinking about it, the date may have been added quite a bit later as it is in arabic numerals.
Marie