Re; needing glasses?
Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 00:36:24
Re: Claire Jordan, Richard needing spectacles? What exactly do you see with your idea of Richard needing glasses. Very interesting since Im a portrait artist, and really look at faces, needless to say, Richards. Carol D.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 00:44:15
From: Carol Darling
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:36 AM
Subject: Re; needing glasses?
> Re: Claire Jordan, Richard needing spectacles? What exactly do you see
> with your idea of Richard needing glasses.
I see he has a rather strained, squinting, narrow-eyed look which is typical
of what you see if you take a short-sighted person's glasses off, and also
that he seems to have had deep eye-sockets relative to their width, which
itself makes it very likely he was myopic. Eyeballs which are
proportionately deep from front to back mean that light tends to focus into
the middle of the eyeball instead of on the retina.
But we can't know for sure unless we can find an account in which he's
ordered spectacles - which did exist at the time, although they were still
rare and experimental.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:36 AM
Subject: Re; needing glasses?
> Re: Claire Jordan, Richard needing spectacles? What exactly do you see
> with your idea of Richard needing glasses.
I see he has a rather strained, squinting, narrow-eyed look which is typical
of what you see if you take a short-sighted person's glasses off, and also
that he seems to have had deep eye-sockets relative to their width, which
itself makes it very likely he was myopic. Eyeballs which are
proportionately deep from front to back mean that light tends to focus into
the middle of the eyeball instead of on the retina.
But we can't know for sure unless we can find an account in which he's
ordered spectacles - which did exist at the time, although they were still
rare and experimental.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 01:59:40
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> I see he has a rather strained, squinting, narrow-eyed look which is
> typical
of what you see if you take a short-sighted person's glasses off, and also
that he seems to have had deep eye-sockets relative to their width, which
itself makes it very likely he was myopic. Eyeballs which are
proportionately deep from front to back mean that light tends to focus into
the middle of the eyeball instead of on the retina.
Incidentally, there's another interesting tie-in between the portrait and
his skeleton. In the NPG portrait, Richard seems to have an excessively
short little finger on his right hand, as if he might have lost part of it
in one of his many battles - and it doesn't seem to have a nail, although a
nail has been drawn in on the RC version of the portrait. On his skeleton,
that finger is missing the top two phalanges. That could just be due to the
bones having been lost in the grave, but that's the only finger which is
missing more than the nail phalanx, and the one remaining phalanx it *does*
have has a slightly waisted appearance (and I do mean waisted not wasted)
relative to the other phalanges, as if it had perhaps not done much work for
years because the distal part of the finger was missing.
Something that irritated me in the documentary was that bit of business
about his "claw-like" thumb. It's obvious what's happened there. The NPG
and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one
a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better -
not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I
want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc.
But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's
partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the
edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the
thumb.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> I see he has a rather strained, squinting, narrow-eyed look which is
> typical
of what you see if you take a short-sighted person's glasses off, and also
that he seems to have had deep eye-sockets relative to their width, which
itself makes it very likely he was myopic. Eyeballs which are
proportionately deep from front to back mean that light tends to focus into
the middle of the eyeball instead of on the retina.
Incidentally, there's another interesting tie-in between the portrait and
his skeleton. In the NPG portrait, Richard seems to have an excessively
short little finger on his right hand, as if he might have lost part of it
in one of his many battles - and it doesn't seem to have a nail, although a
nail has been drawn in on the RC version of the portrait. On his skeleton,
that finger is missing the top two phalanges. That could just be due to the
bones having been lost in the grave, but that's the only finger which is
missing more than the nail phalanx, and the one remaining phalanx it *does*
have has a slightly waisted appearance (and I do mean waisted not wasted)
relative to the other phalanges, as if it had perhaps not done much work for
years because the distal part of the finger was missing.
Something that irritated me in the documentary was that bit of business
about his "claw-like" thumb. It's obvious what's happened there. The NPG
and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one
a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better -
not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I
want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc.
But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's
partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the
edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the
thumb.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 05:18:55
Claire wrote:
> [snip] The NPG and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better - not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc. But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the thumb.
Carol responds:
I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits. But the Royal Collection portrait is the first deliberately distorted portrait, as Pamela Tudor-Craig, who has been studying these portraits since at least the 1970s and was, I believe, the first to X=ray the altered portraits, stated in the documentary.
Here's what the Richard III Society's portrait page has to say about it:
"With the Royal Collection portrait the matter is not quite straightforward because it appears that, at some time after the copy was first painted, some deliberate alterations were made to it. The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jewelled collar on that side a little further upwards. With the passing of time the additional paintwork on the gown has become fainter, so that the original line of the shoulder is now quite clearly visible to the naked eye. An X-radiograph of the painting showed up this change very clearly, and also revealed that Richard's right eye was originally not as narrow as it now appears: the lower edge of the eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, judging from the paintwork itself, there is reason to think that the outline of the nose may have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention of 'improving' the portrait by bringing it more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain. If, as seems likely, the copyist himself made the changes to his work, it is very doubtful whether such a lowly artisan would have dared to take the initiative in doing so; probably they were suggested, or dictated, by someone in a position of authority at the court."
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively older, uglier, and more deformed.
Carol
> [snip] The NPG and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better - not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc. But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the thumb.
Carol responds:
I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits. But the Royal Collection portrait is the first deliberately distorted portrait, as Pamela Tudor-Craig, who has been studying these portraits since at least the 1970s and was, I believe, the first to X=ray the altered portraits, stated in the documentary.
Here's what the Richard III Society's portrait page has to say about it:
"With the Royal Collection portrait the matter is not quite straightforward because it appears that, at some time after the copy was first painted, some deliberate alterations were made to it. The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jewelled collar on that side a little further upwards. With the passing of time the additional paintwork on the gown has become fainter, so that the original line of the shoulder is now quite clearly visible to the naked eye. An X-radiograph of the painting showed up this change very clearly, and also revealed that Richard's right eye was originally not as narrow as it now appears: the lower edge of the eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, judging from the paintwork itself, there is reason to think that the outline of the nose may have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention of 'improving' the portrait by bringing it more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain. If, as seems likely, the copyist himself made the changes to his work, it is very doubtful whether such a lowly artisan would have dared to take the initiative in doing so; probably they were suggested, or dictated, by someone in a position of authority at the court."
http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively older, uglier, and more deformed.
Carol
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 05:36:40
Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking with new young Richard!
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:17 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Claire wrote:
>
> > [snip] The NPG and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better - not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc. But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the thumb.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits. But the Royal Collection portrait is the first deliberately distorted portrait, as Pamela Tudor-Craig, who has been studying these portraits since at least the 1970s and was, I believe, the first to X=ray the altered portraits, stated in the documentary.
>
> Here's what the Richard III Society's portrait page has to say about it:
>
> "With the Royal Collection portrait the matter is not quite straightforward because it appears that, at some time after the copy was first painted, some deliberate alterations were made to it. The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jewelled collar on that side a little further upwards. With the passing of time the additional paintwork on the gown has become fainter, so that the original line of the shoulder is now quite clearly visible to the naked eye. An X-radiograph of the painting showed up this change very clearly, and also revealed that Richard's right eye was originally not as narrow as it now appears: the lower edge of the eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, judging from the paintwork itself, there is reason to think that the outline of the nose may have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention of 'improving' the portrait by bringing it more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain. If, as seems likely, the copyist himself made the changes to his work, it is very doubtful whether such a lowly artisan would have dared to take the initiative in doing so; probably they were suggested, or dictated, by someone in a position of authority at the court."
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
>
> In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively older, uglier, and more deformed.
>
> Carol
>
>
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:17 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Claire wrote:
>
> > [snip] The NPG and RC portraits seem to be two inependent copies from the original, not one a copy of the other. I'm sure the NPG one has captured the face better - not just because it's the most pleasant-looking, and therefore the one I want to be real, but because it has the most detail of skin-tone, veins etc. But the RC one shows clearly that his thumb is that shape because it's partially concealed behind his lapel, whereas the NPG copiest has drawn the edge of his jacket in the wrong place and then not known what to do with the thumb.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits. But the Royal Collection portrait is the first deliberately distorted portrait, as Pamela Tudor-Craig, who has been studying these portraits since at least the 1970s and was, I believe, the first to X=ray the altered portraits, stated in the documentary.
>
> Here's what the Richard III Society's portrait page has to say about it:
>
> "With the Royal Collection portrait the matter is not quite straightforward because it appears that, at some time after the copy was first painted, some deliberate alterations were made to it. The king's right shoulder was made to look higher than his left by extending the gown and the jewelled collar on that side a little further upwards. With the passing of time the additional paintwork on the gown has become fainter, so that the original line of the shoulder is now quite clearly visible to the naked eye. An X-radiograph of the painting showed up this change very clearly, and also revealed that Richard's right eye was originally not as narrow as it now appears: the lower edge of the eye has been slightly raised and straightened. Also, judging from the paintwork itself, there is reason to think that the outline of the nose may have been enlarged a little and that the mouth has been tampered with in order to make the lips look thinner. Without doubt these alterations were made with the intention of 'improving' the portrait by bringing it more into line with the early Tudor view of Richard as a deformed villain. If, as seems likely, the copyist himself made the changes to his work, it is very doubtful whether such a lowly artisan would have dared to take the initiative in doing so; probably they were suggested, or dictated, by someone in a position of authority at the court."
>
> http://www.richardiii.net/2_4_0_riii_appearance.php#portrait
>
> In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively older, uglier, and more deformed.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 09:43:43
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look
> exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits.
Yes - although there's no actual guarantee that they're *his* hands. I'm
told that artists often just painted the face from the sitter and then used
a standard model, or even themselves, for the hands. But the rather wide,
flat backs of his hands in the NPG portrait do look compatiable with the
skeleton.
> In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a
> lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was
> deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who
> commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the
> basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively
> older, uglier, and more deformed.
It's a pity we can't really see how it looks under the alterrations, but I
guess we can't very well clean them off, since the alterrations are
themselves an important historical artefact. It might originally have been
an even better likeness than the NPG one. I'm going to play around with the
newly cleaned SoA one in ImageFolio some time, since as compared with the
reconstruction we can see that the artist has slightly displaced his mouth.
It needs to move up slightly to become a true likeness, lengthening his chin
and shortening his upper lip.
I wonser if his rather tight-lipped appearance in both versions is due to
toothache - which he must have suffered from badly, since he's lost half his
cheek teeth. But if course, prior to the invention of photography all
formal portraits like this are portraits of somebody who is sitting there
while their bum goes numb and they're wondering when they can knock off and
go have lunch. And probable-myopia aside he must have been quite unhappy,
if these were indeed painted because he was re-enterring the marriage
market - he'd probably be missing Ann and wondering whom he was going to get
and "Will I like her? Will I fancy her? Will she fancy me?"
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:17 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> I have no opinion on the hands and fingers except that, to me, they look
> exceptionally graceful in both the NPG and SA portraits.
Yes - although there's no actual guarantee that they're *his* hands. I'm
told that artists often just painted the face from the sitter and then used
a standard model, or even themselves, for the hands. But the rather wide,
flat backs of his hands in the NPG portrait do look compatiable with the
skeleton.
> In other words, it apparently started out as a rather faithful dopy of a
> lost original (probably the same one used for the NPG portrait) but was
> deliberately altered, presumably at the request of Henry VIII, who
> commissioned the painting. Unfortunately, that ghastly painting became the
> basis for all the later paintings of Richard, making him look successively
> older, uglier, and more deformed.
It's a pity we can't really see how it looks under the alterrations, but I
guess we can't very well clean them off, since the alterrations are
themselves an important historical artefact. It might originally have been
an even better likeness than the NPG one. I'm going to play around with the
newly cleaned SoA one in ImageFolio some time, since as compared with the
reconstruction we can see that the artist has slightly displaced his mouth.
It needs to move up slightly to become a true likeness, lengthening his chin
and shortening his upper lip.
I wonser if his rather tight-lipped appearance in both versions is due to
toothache - which he must have suffered from badly, since he's lost half his
cheek teeth. But if course, prior to the invention of photography all
formal portraits like this are portraits of somebody who is sitting there
while their bum goes numb and they're wondering when they can knock off and
go have lunch. And probable-myopia aside he must have been quite unhappy,
if these were indeed painted because he was re-enterring the marriage
market - he'd probably be missing Ann and wondering whom he was going to get
and "Will I like her? Will I fancy her? Will she fancy me?"
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 10:00:01
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 13:08:56
And people aged faster in those days. The average age of death was much younger, even for the nobility.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: Ishita Bandyo
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: Ishita Bandyo
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 13:44:18
From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: Re; needing glasses?
> And people aged faster in those days. The average age of death was much
> younger, even for the nobility.
I think that's actually the wrong way to look at it. My impression is that
people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old
then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long
enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict
young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which
was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and
a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but
in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But
they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were
being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of
whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:08 PM
Subject: RE: Re; needing glasses?
> And people aged faster in those days. The average age of death was much
> younger, even for the nobility.
I think that's actually the wrong way to look at it. My impression is that
people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old
then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long
enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict
young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which
was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and
a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but
in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But
they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were
being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of
whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 14:05:37
I think we've discussed this and it wan't necessarily so. Like life in the nineteenth century it depended on where you lived, what work you did and your genetics.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:08
Subject: RE: Re; needing glasses?
And people aged faster in those days. The average age of death was much younger, even for the nobility.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 13:08
Subject: RE: Re; needing glasses?
And people aged faster in those days. The average age of death was much younger, even for the nobility.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 4:11 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Even the NPG portrait is one of a much older person than 32! I am sticking
> with new young Richard!
It's probably accurate, though. He spent a lot of time riding about
Yorkshire in all weathers - his face would have been, quite literally,
weather-beaten, and probably tanned brown when he wasn't at court. And I
suppose he would have washed with ordinary basic soap, which is horrible for
your skin.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 17:08:36
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
Carol responds:
I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
Carol
> [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
Carol responds:
I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
Carol
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 17:15:17
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 18:13:59
And just think about what presence Richard must have had, to be able to command grown men at such a young age.
Vickie
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
Vickie
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 19:53:51
Again, these were children of royal birth. Even as a last son, he had to know the basics, and understand that he "could" one day be king.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "Vickie Cook" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:
And just think about what presence Richard must have had, to be able to command grown men at such a young age.
Vickie
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "Vickie Cook" <lolettecook@...<mailto:lolettecook@...>> wrote:
And just think about what presence Richard must have had, to be able to command grown men at such a young age.
Vickie
From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 11:26 AM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today.
Except for their teeth, of course, which wore out fast due to a combination
of gritty bread and poor dental hygeine.
> Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends
> to be overlooked,
Perhaps it's because he'd been on the scene as a soldier and administrator
for so long that he'd become part of the furniture, and people didn't
realise that he'd started when he was *twelve*.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 20:05:43
That's very interesting, Carol.
Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>
> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>
> Carol
>
>
Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>
> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 20:19:41
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> be considered young at any time.
As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
am not convinced.
Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
length is about six inches. Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
proportionately deep eyes.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> be considered young at any time.
As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
am not convinced.
Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
length is about six inches. Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
proportionately deep eyes.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 20:29:00
Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>That's very interesting, Carol.
>Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>>
>> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>That's very interesting, Carol.
>Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>>
>> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 20:41:20
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
> worse.
Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
To:
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
> worse.
Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:07:09
As medicine is based on Greek and Arabic teaching I have a hard time with your statement about them having a lot to answer for! Perhaps after the Gauls sacked Rome and took centuries of learning back in time (some of which was retained in church documentation) but with the destruction of many great libraries and places of learning mankind managed to loose this hard earned knowledge.
Superstition took the place of scholarship even at the height of the dark ages many lights still burnt however dim. The last time I heard the Hippocratic Oath it was after a Greek not the brothers Hunter.
George
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
>
> Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
> William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> >To: "" >
> >Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
> >Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> >
> >
> >
> >That's very interesting, Carol.
> >Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
> >As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
> >
> >Ishita Bandyo
> >Sent from my iPad
> >
> >On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> >> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >>
> >> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
> >>
> >> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Superstition took the place of scholarship even at the height of the dark ages many lights still burnt however dim. The last time I heard the Hippocratic Oath it was after a Greek not the brothers Hunter.
George
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
>
> Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
> William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> >To: "" >
> >Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
> >Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> >
> >
> >
> >That's very interesting, Carol.
> >Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
> >As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
> >
> >Ishita Bandyo
> >Sent from my iPad
> >
> >On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> >> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> >>
> >> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
> >>
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
> >>
> >> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:07:15
As someone with a qualification in social history I've done a lot of work on longevity - ranging from Richard's time until the 20th century. As Karen Clark said on here a while back it wasn't to do with the century, it was more to do with the circumstances - you lived longer if you worked on the land, didn't fight, didn't have children, didn't work in a factory etc. As now, it's a lottery to do with genetics. circumstances, gender etc. The old ideas that people in other centuries died earlier don't hold up. If you worked as a child in a cotton factory in Manchester in 1860 your life expectancy would probably be less than a priest or a farm worker in the fifteenth century. Not until the late 19th century do medical advancements kick in. People were still dying of smallpox in 1890 H
________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:28
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>That's very interesting, Carol.
>Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>>
>> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:28
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient worse.
Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
>To: "" >
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:05
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>That's very interesting, Carol.
>Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> > [snip] My impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>>
>> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester." The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:14:10
The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:41 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: Arthurian
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
> worse.
Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 2:41 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: Arthurian
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
> worse.
Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:21:27
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
down, and its knowledge was lost.
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
down, and its knowledge was lost.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:25:50
The Church had a lot to do with several orders including the Knights Templar. When it went against the tenets of whomever was the leader, it was done away with. I saw the word monastery, I am merely saying it could be.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
down, and its knowledge was lost.
On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
down, and its knowledge was lost.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 21:44:01
From: Pamela Bain
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church had a lot to do with several orders including the Knights
> Templar. When it went against the tenets of whomever was the leader, it
> was done away with. I saw the word monastery, I am merely saying it could
> be.
Soutra was an Augustinian friary, which was the largerst hospital in
Scotland for 300 years. I looked up why it declined - I'm sure I've read
that the traffic moved away but also apparently the master of the hospital
in 1460 got into some unspecified trouble which caused it to lose its
grants. It limped on into the 17th C before closing.
To: <>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:25 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> The Church had a lot to do with several orders including the Knights
> Templar. When it went against the tenets of whomever was the leader, it
> was done away with. I saw the word monastery, I am merely saying it could
> be.
Soutra was an Augustinian friary, which was the largerst hospital in
Scotland for 300 years. I looked up why it declined - I'm sure I've read
that the traffic moved away but also apparently the master of the hospital
in 1460 got into some unspecified trouble which caused it to lose its
grants. It limped on into the 17th C before closing.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 22:20:55
I agree there were CERTAINLY areas were the exception was proven [Usually by Surgeons as in the removal of the arrow in Henry Vs [Then Henry of Monmoth] face after the battle of Shrewsbury.]
Some useful herbalists also plied their trade, however MANY treatments were worse than the disease.]
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:52
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
>> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>
>> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
>> worse.
>
>Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
>borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
>but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
>
>
>
>
>
Some useful herbalists also plied their trade, however MANY treatments were worse than the disease.]
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 20:52
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:28 PM
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the
>> 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>
>> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the patient
>> worse.
>
>Curiously, there was a 12th C monastic hospital at Soutra in the Scottish
>borders which had very advanced treatments, including general anaesthesia -
>but for some reason the knowledge was lost.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 22:55:09
Perhaps I was a little harsh, certainly the 'Hippocratic Oath' was a useful statement and philosophy, however the desire & statement 'Not to do harm' is not the same as 'Not doing harm'.
In THIS ERA we have just, this past week, received the reports on the hospital @ Stafford with Dr. Foster & other reports causing concerns @ numerous other places. Our care of both the elderly & children in care/at risk still leaves much to improve.
Only when the nature of the human bodies construction could be explored [Out-with the control of the church.] which 'Banned' dissection and some knowledge of the nature of disease & infection could be gleaned, much of this in 'Protestant' Europe, could things improve. That is NOT to say that within these constraints in Catholic Europe some individual's, often Priests or Monks, made useful contributions.
I have OFTEN felt Dr. Rodrigo Lopez (c. 1525 June 7, 1594) Hung Drawn & quartered [by the urging of the Earl of Essex] was a Physician of some skill, PROBABLY using the Arab learning brought from Spain & Portugal. Sadly in fleeing the Iberian horrors, he died horribly in England.
People of THIS Calibre, like some battlefield surgeons, were not too common, .
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:07
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>As medicine is based on Greek and
Arabic teaching I have a hard time with your statement about them having a lot to answer for! Perhaps after the Gauls sacked Rome and took centuries of learning back in time (some of which was retained in church documentation) but with the destruction of many great libraries and places of learning mankind managed to loose this hard earned knowledge.
>Superstition took the place of scholarship even at the height of the dark ages many lights still burnt however dim. The last time I heard the Hippocratic Oath it was after a Greek not the brothers Hunter.
>
>George
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>>
>> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the
patient worse.
>>
>> Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
>> William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Arthur.
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
>> >To: "" >
>> >Sent: Friday, 22
February 2013, 20:05
>> >Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >That's very interesting, Carol.
>> >Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>> >As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>> >
>> >Ishita Bandyo
>> >Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> >On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > [snip] My
impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>> >>
>> >> Carol responds:
>> >>
>> >> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in
the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>> >>
>> >> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester."
The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>> >>
>> >> Carol
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
In THIS ERA we have just, this past week, received the reports on the hospital @ Stafford with Dr. Foster & other reports causing concerns @ numerous other places. Our care of both the elderly & children in care/at risk still leaves much to improve.
Only when the nature of the human bodies construction could be explored [Out-with the control of the church.] which 'Banned' dissection and some knowledge of the nature of disease & infection could be gleaned, much of this in 'Protestant' Europe, could things improve. That is NOT to say that within these constraints in Catholic Europe some individual's, often Priests or Monks, made useful contributions.
I have OFTEN felt Dr. Rodrigo Lopez (c. 1525 June 7, 1594) Hung Drawn & quartered [by the urging of the Earl of Essex] was a Physician of some skill, PROBABLY using the Arab learning brought from Spain & Portugal. Sadly in fleeing the Iberian horrors, he died horribly in England.
People of THIS Calibre, like some battlefield surgeons, were not too common, .
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:07
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>As medicine is based on Greek and
Arabic teaching I have a hard time with your statement about them having a lot to answer for! Perhaps after the Gauls sacked Rome and took centuries of learning back in time (some of which was retained in church documentation) but with the destruction of many great libraries and places of learning mankind managed to loose this hard earned knowledge.
>Superstition took the place of scholarship even at the height of the dark ages many lights still burnt however dim. The last time I heard the Hippocratic Oath it was after a Greek not the brothers Hunter.
>
>George
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
>> Good Health [Until quite recently] Probably consisted of avoiding the 'Medical Fraternity' altogether.
>>
>> Bleeding, Leeching and several other treatments often made the
patient worse.
>>
>> Whilst a few treatments 'Worked', It was NOT until the work of such as the Hunter brothers,
>> William & John in the 18th century that a range of treatments began to be based on a knowledge of anatomy. The Book 'Brother Surgeons' is worth a read. Galen & several other Greeks have a lot to answer for.
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Arthur.
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
>> >To: "" >
>> >Sent: Friday, 22
February 2013, 20:05
>> >Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >That's very interesting, Carol.
>> >Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would be considered young at any time.
>> >As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I am not convinced. Maybe he was used to frowning and it became his general habit to narrow his eyes! Of course it is speculation on my part.
>> >
>> >Ishita Bandyo
>> >Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> >On Feb 22, 2013, at 12:08 PM, "justcarol67" justcarol67@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > [snip] My
impression is that people were considered old not much younger than nowadays - a 60-year-old then was like a 70-year-old now - it's just that hardly anybody lived long enough to be considered old. There are so many disease which can afflict young people - asthma, and diabetes, and dental abscess, and malaria (which was rife in some areas of England), and an infected cut on your finger, and a nasty oozy thing in your ear - which are just a minor nuisance to us, but in an age before antibiotics they could carry you off in a few days. But they would still I think have been seen as fairly young people that were being carried off, and would still have *been* fairly young in terms of whether or not they exhibited signs of ageing.
>> >>
>> >> Carol responds:
>> >>
>> >> I more or less agree with this post though I'm not sure about sixty being the equivalent of seventy. But the estimates of the average lifespan in
the fifteenth century (or any other time before modern antibiotics) don't indicate that people aged any faster than they do today. They simply reflect a very high rate of infant and child mortality, along with diseases, death in childbirth for women, and death in battle for men. If, like Cecily Neville or Archbishop Bourchier or Cardinal Morton, you somehow survived all those hazards, you could live into your eighties.
>> >>
>> >> As for Richard, he would have been regarded as a fairly young man, certainly capable of fathering heirs. Henry Tudor, who at twenty-seven was only five years younger than Richard, is (IIRC) referred to as young in the chronicles. Somehow, Richard's young age throughout his career and even at death tends to be overlooked, as when the seventeen-year-old Edward of Lancaster is constantly referred to as "the young prince" and Richard, just one year and about ten days older is just "the Duke of Gloucester."
The Arrival emphasizes his youth, but I don't know of any other source that does.
>> >>
>> >> Carol
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-22 23:10:13
Let's Try to be 'Ecumenical':
The Anglican Church has just 'Refused to Allow Women Bishops' [Despite an OVERALL vote in FAVOUR]
'What Price Democracy, Equality & Etc?'
Apart from a 'Recent Papal Resignation' [Interesting reasons may YET emerge]
Concerns remain to be addressed in MANY other areas, MAY the NEW Man in the Vatican address these?
We shall see.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:25
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>The Church had a lot to do with several orders including the Knights Templar. When it went against the tenets of whomever was the leader, it was done away with. I saw the word monastery, I am merely saying it could be.
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...>
>To: >
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
>
>It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
>new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
>down, and its knowledge was lost.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Anglican Church has just 'Refused to Allow Women Bishops' [Despite an OVERALL vote in FAVOUR]
'What Price Democracy, Equality & Etc?'
Apart from a 'Recent Papal Resignation' [Interesting reasons may YET emerge]
Concerns remain to be addressed in MANY other areas, MAY the NEW Man in the Vatican address these?
We shall see.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 21:25
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>
>
>The Church had a lot to do with several orders including the Knights Templar. When it went against the tenets of whomever was the leader, it was done away with. I saw the word monastery, I am merely saying it could be.
>
>On Feb 22, 2013, at 3:21 PM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" pbain@...>
>To: >
>Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 9:14 PM
>Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
>> The Church, no doubt, no offense intended.
>
>It was a church institution. The monastery lost power - I *think* because a
>new road opened up which diverted travellers away - and eventually closed
>down, and its knowledge was lost.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 13:49:17
>
> I wonser if his rather tight-lipped appearance in both versions is due to
> toothache - which he must have suffered from badly, since he's lost half his
> cheek teeth.
Marie replies:-
It's actually due to the lower lip having been overpainted at a later date to look thinner.
> I wonser if his rather tight-lipped appearance in both versions is due to
> toothache - which he must have suffered from badly, since he's lost half his
> cheek teeth.
Marie replies:-
It's actually due to the lower lip having been overpainted at a later date to look thinner.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 15:02:09
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
> > Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> > be considered young at any time.
> As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
> down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
> am not convinced.
>
> Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
> length is about six inches.
Marie replies:
About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I couldn't have made out the pictures on it. No way would I have been safe leading a charge. I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
> were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
> were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
> proportionately deep eyes.
>
>
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
>
> > Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> > be considered young at any time.
> As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
> down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
> am not convinced.
>
> Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
> length is about six inches.
Marie replies:
About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I couldn't have made out the pictures on it. No way would I have been safe leading a charge. I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
> were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
> were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
> proportionately deep eyes.
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 15:07:56
As someone who has about 20/300 vision(!!), I truly doubt Richard was near-sighted as we Americans say. I can't imagine a great battle leader wandering around Bosworth like Mr. Magoo. Maire.
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> >
> > > Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> > > be considered young at any time.
> > As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
> > down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
> > am not convinced.
> >
> > Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
> > length is about six inches.
>
> Marie replies:
> About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I couldn't have made out the pictures on it. No way would I have been safe leading a charge. I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
> > were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
> > were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
> > proportionately deep eyes.
> >
>
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 8:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> >
> > > Why do you think it is? EW was still breeding at 32. So a man at 32 would
> > > be considered young at any time.
> > As for needing glasses, I doubt it. You cannot fight the Scots or charge
> > down at the enemy wearing glasses. He could spot Tudor from a distance so I
> > am not convinced.
> >
> > Well, even I could probably spot a banner at a distance - and my ideal focal
> > length is about six inches.
>
> Marie replies:
> About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I couldn't have made out the pictures on it. No way would I have been safe leading a charge. I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> Much depends on whether his eye-sockets really
> > were as proportionately deep as they appear in the photographs, but if they
> > were he'd *have* to be myopic, really, becaue that's what myopia really is -
> > proportionately deep eyes.
> >
>
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 15:19:59
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Marie replies:
About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse
with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I
couldn't have made out the pictures on it.
Ooh - now, that wouldn't matter so long as the banners were distinct
*colours* but it would if they were similar colours. Was it as Tewkesbury
that people got confused between the sun in splendour and the silver star in
the fog?
> I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
Deep-set eyes means the front of the eyeball is well back in the head, so
deep-set eyes are very unlikely to be myopic. I''m talking about an eye
where the front surface of the eye is *not* deep-set, but the back of the
eye is back at the back of a deep eye-socket, resulting in a long eyeball.
Of course, saying he looks as if he needs specs in the portrait could also
mean he was *long*-sighted, which would be a positive advantage in the
field - but not if his eye-sockets are as deep as they appear, because
long-sighted eyes are shallow from front to back.
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Marie replies:
About double my ideal than my focal length now, but my sight has got worse
with age. Yes, when younger I could have seen a banner at a distance but I
couldn't have made out the pictures on it.
Ooh - now, that wouldn't matter so long as the banners were distinct
*colours* but it would if they were similar colours. Was it as Tewkesbury
that people got confused between the sun in splendour and the silver star in
the fog?
> I've googled "deep set eyes" and myopia but I've found nothing.
Deep-set eyes means the front of the eyeball is well back in the head, so
deep-set eyes are very unlikely to be myopic. I''m talking about an eye
where the front surface of the eye is *not* deep-set, but the back of the
eye is back at the back of a deep eye-socket, resulting in a long eyeball.
Of course, saying he looks as if he needs specs in the portrait could also
mean he was *long*-sighted, which would be a positive advantage in the
field - but not if his eye-sockets are as deep as they appear, because
long-sighted eyes are shallow from front to back.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 19:19:02
Maire wrote:
//snip//
"I can't imagine a great battle leader wandering around Bosworth like Mr.
Magoo."
The image that sentence brings to mind!
Doug
//snip//
"I can't imagine a great battle leader wandering around Bosworth like Mr.
Magoo."
The image that sentence brings to mind!
Doug
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 19:34:46
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Maire wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "I can't imagine a great battle leader wandering around Bosworth like Mr.
> Magoo."
>
> The image that sentence brings to mind!
> Doug
>
It would certainly explain why he lost.
Marie
>
>
> Maire wrote:
>
> //snip//
> "I can't imagine a great battle leader wandering around Bosworth like Mr.
> Magoo."
>
> The image that sentence brings to mind!
> Doug
>
It would certainly explain why he lost.
Marie
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 20:06:23
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>> Ooh - now, that wouldn't matter so long as the banners were distinct *colours* but it would if they were similar colours. Was it as Tewkesbury that people got confused between the sun in splendour and the silver star in the fog?
> Of course, saying he looks as if he needs specs in the portrait could also mean he was *long*-sighted, which would be a positive advantage in the field - but not if his eye-sockets are as deep as they appear, because long-sighted eyes are shallow from front to back.
Carol responds:
The fog was at Barnet, as other people may already have posted. There's even a delightful and cleverly titled blog called "The Fog of War: 540th Anniversary of the Battle of Barnet": http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/99574-fog-war-540th-anniversary-battle.html (Well, it's delightful except for a completely inappropriate quotation at the end mentioning "wicked uncles" and "damsels in distress," (Um, what?) Except for that oblique and obviously absurd allusion, it doesn't mention Richard at all, unless you count several references to Bosworth as a much more well-known battle.)
As for far-sighted (long-sighted) eyes giving an advantage on the battlefield, I'm afraid not. I'm and my vision is something like 20-200 without glasses and only 20-30 in one eye and 20-40 in the other corrected. Of course, I also have astigmatism, which doesn't help. I think that since so many more people are myopic than hyperopic, many have a misconception about what it's like to be farsighted. We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns. I would be as much a danger on the battlefield as Mr. Magoo (whom someone else mentioned--I chuckled because I had the same mental image).
At any rate, I think it's impossible to judge Richard's eyesight from his portraits, especially as none is painted from life. A much better guide is performance on the battlefield and the number of books that he not only owned but obviously read. And since no contemporary source, not even Rous, mentions a habit of squinting or problems with his eyesight, it's probably yet another dead end.
Carol
>> Ooh - now, that wouldn't matter so long as the banners were distinct *colours* but it would if they were similar colours. Was it as Tewkesbury that people got confused between the sun in splendour and the silver star in the fog?
> Of course, saying he looks as if he needs specs in the portrait could also mean he was *long*-sighted, which would be a positive advantage in the field - but not if his eye-sockets are as deep as they appear, because long-sighted eyes are shallow from front to back.
Carol responds:
The fog was at Barnet, as other people may already have posted. There's even a delightful and cleverly titled blog called "The Fog of War: 540th Anniversary of the Battle of Barnet": http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/99574-fog-war-540th-anniversary-battle.html (Well, it's delightful except for a completely inappropriate quotation at the end mentioning "wicked uncles" and "damsels in distress," (Um, what?) Except for that oblique and obviously absurd allusion, it doesn't mention Richard at all, unless you count several references to Bosworth as a much more well-known battle.)
As for far-sighted (long-sighted) eyes giving an advantage on the battlefield, I'm afraid not. I'm and my vision is something like 20-200 without glasses and only 20-30 in one eye and 20-40 in the other corrected. Of course, I also have astigmatism, which doesn't help. I think that since so many more people are myopic than hyperopic, many have a misconception about what it's like to be farsighted. We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns. I would be as much a danger on the battlefield as Mr. Magoo (whom someone else mentioned--I chuckled because I had the same mental image).
At any rate, I think it's impossible to judge Richard's eyesight from his portraits, especially as none is painted from life. A much better guide is performance on the battlefield and the number of books that he not only owned but obviously read. And since no contemporary source, not even Rous, mentions a habit of squinting or problems with his eyesight, it's probably yet another dead end.
Carol
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 20:17:53
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the
> counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns.
Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry if
you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have
any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:06 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the
> counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns.
Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry if
you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have
any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 20:21:10
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry
> if
you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have
any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
Oh and plus, she was an extremely good shot with a rifle when she was in the
army - without glasses.
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry
> if
you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have
any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
Oh and plus, she was an extremely good shot with a rifle when she was in the
army - without glasses.
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 21:52:33
Carol earlier:
> > We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns.
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry if you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
Carol responds:
Possibly the astigmatism. It's certainly not age-related. I've worn glasses since I was two. (The doctor said it was a wonder that I hadn't fallen downstairs!) "Too young for that"? Nope. Not too young for much of anything except Medicare (an American form of medical insurance for which you have to be 65 to qualify). I'm a grandmother of three. But to return to the topic, I've never heard of being far-sighted as a *good* thing. It requires glasses (or contacts) just as much as myopia does, and my vision without glasses would probably have made me completely useless in Richard's day.
Never heard of age-related presbyopia, which I suppose could be the reason that reading is so much harder than it used to be. I'll have to check into that.
Carol
> > We need glasses to read (and the magnifying lenses you can buy over the counter are no help), but we also need glasses to drive or read roadsigns.
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Are you sure that's not the astigmatism, or age-related presbyopia (sorry if you're too young for that)? My mother's long-sighted and she didn't have any problems like that when she was younger, only with reading close up.
Carol responds:
Possibly the astigmatism. It's certainly not age-related. I've worn glasses since I was two. (The doctor said it was a wonder that I hadn't fallen downstairs!) "Too young for that"? Nope. Not too young for much of anything except Medicare (an American form of medical insurance for which you have to be 65 to qualify). I'm a grandmother of three. But to return to the topic, I've never heard of being far-sighted as a *good* thing. It requires glasses (or contacts) just as much as myopia does, and my vision without glasses would probably have made me completely useless in Richard's day.
Never heard of age-related presbyopia, which I suppose could be the reason that reading is so much harder than it used to be. I'll have to check into that.
Carol
Re: Re; needing glasses?
2013-02-23 22:01:13
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Never heard of age-related presbyopia, which I suppose could be the reason
> that reading is so much harder than it used to be. I'll have to check into
> that.
Regular long-sightedness is caused by having shallow but otherwise
fully-functioning eyeballs. Presbyopia is a type of long-sightedness which
is caused by age, where the lens of the eye becomes less flexible and fine
adjustment of vision becomes impossible.
To:
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: Re; needing glasses?
> Never heard of age-related presbyopia, which I suppose could be the reason
> that reading is so much harder than it used to be. I'll have to check into
> that.
Regular long-sightedness is caused by having shallow but otherwise
fully-functioning eyeballs. Presbyopia is a type of long-sightedness which
is caused by age, where the lens of the eye becomes less flexible and fine
adjustment of vision becomes impossible.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.