Marine diet

In the episode of History Cold Case - Stirling Man, the investigators
discovered that their individual (death radio carbon dated to between
1290 & 1400) had consumed a diet 30% derived from marine fish (which, if
I'm recalling correctly, is very close to the percentage for Richard).
They had already determined that this individual was most likely a
knight, & English. They then talked to Prof Chris Woolgar, University
of Southampton, who made a number of interesting points, which may be
relevant to a discussion of what Richard's remains tell us about him.
These points were(1) there was a thriving industry in the preservation
of fish(2) the English army was provisioned with a lot of this dried
fish (Exchequer records, I assume from the era of Stirling Man) suggest
that such fish made up about 1/3 of the diet of soldiers(3) eating fish
was linked to their conception of religious virtue "fish is most like
the food men will eat in Paradise" and represented a way of avoiding
carnality ... gluttony & sin.
This gentleman's concluding remarks regarding the high % of marine fish
in Stirling Man's diet was that it represented the standard diet of the
army & was also the one expected for a pious Christion knight.
A J
(One again recommending this video for the comparisons & contrasts with
the evaluation of Richard's remains).

They SHOULD [I feel] retain small specimens of the remains IN CASE new tests become available in future years. 

The Victorian exhumation of Edward IV would have been interesting, The body was said to be in excellent state of preservation.

I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the time. 
[Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:49
>Subject: Marine diet
>
>
> 
>In the episode of History Cold Case - Stirling Man, the investigators
>discovered that their individual (death radio carbon dated to between
>1290 & 1400) had consumed a diet 30% derived from marine fish (which, if
>I'm recalling correctly, is very close to the percentage for Richard).
>They had already determined that this individual was most likely a
>knight, & English. They then talked to Prof Chris Woolgar, University
>of Southampton, who made a number of interesting points, which may be
>relevant to a discussion of what Richard's remains tell us about him.
>These points were(1) there was a thriving industry in the preservation
>of fish(2) the English army was provisioned with a lot of this dried
>fish (Exchequer records, I assume from the era of Stirling Man) suggest
>that such fish made up about 1/3 of the diet of soldiers(3) eating fish
>was linked to their conception of religious virtue "fish is most like
>the food men will eat in Paradise" and represented a way of avoiding
>carnality ... gluttony & sin.
>This gentleman's concluding remarks regarding the high % of marine fish
>in Stirling Man's diet was that it represented the standard diet of the
>army & was also the one expected for a pious Christion knight.
>A J
>(One again recommending this video for the comparisons & contrasts with
>the evaluation of Richard's remains).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Marine diet


> I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the
> time.
[Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]

Ooh - yes. If it contains any hair follicles with viable DNA we'd be able
to settle once and for all whether Edward was Richard's brother, or his
*half*-brother. Personally I think he probably was the son of the Duke of
York, and just a bit premature - but if he turned out not to be it would
cause a stink because it would mean the Tudors had the throne *only* by
Henry's rather thin Lancastrian claim and by conquest, since it would mean
Elizabeth of York wasn't a direct descendant of Richard Duke of York, not
even a bastard one.

Might the BBC help LOCATE the present owner?

Perhaps their Archives?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 12:53
>Subject: Re: Marine diet
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:20 PM
>Subject: Re: Marine diet
>
>> I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the
>> time.
>[Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]
>
>Ooh - yes. If it contains any hair follicles with viable DNA we'd be able
>to settle once and for all whether Edward was Richard's brother, or his
>*half*-brother. Personally I think he probably was the son of the Duke of
>York, and just a bit premature - but if he turned out not to be it would
>cause a stink because it would mean the Tudors had the throne *only* by
>Henry's rather thin Lancastrian claim and by conquest, since it would mean
>Elizabeth of York wasn't a direct descendant of Richard Duke of York, not
>even a bastard one.
>
>
>
>
>

Edward IV obviously adhered to the seafood diet.
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Marine diet



They SHOULD [I feel] retain small specimens of the remains IN CASE new tests become available in future years.

The Victorian exhumation of Edward IV would have been interesting, The body was said to be in excellent state of preservation.

I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the time.
[Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]

Kind Regards,

Arthur Wright.

>________________________________
> From: "ajhibbard@..." ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:49
>Subject: Marine diet
>
>
>
>In the episode of History Cold Case - Stirling Man, the investigators
>discovered that their individual (death radio carbon dated to between
>1290 & 1400) had consumed a diet 30% derived from marine fish (which, if
>I'm recalling correctly, is very close to the percentage for Richard).
>They had already determined that this individual was most likely a
>knight, & English. They then talked to Prof Chris Woolgar, University
>of Southampton, who made a number of interesting points, which may be
>relevant to a discussion of what Richard's remains tell us about him.
>These points were(1) there was a thriving industry in the preservation
>of fish(2) the English army was provisioned with a lot of this dried
>fish (Exchequer records, I assume from the era of Stirling Man) suggest
>that such fish made up about 1/3 of the diet of soldiers(3) eating fish
>was linked to their conception of religious virtue "fish is most like
>the food men will eat in Paradise" and represented a way of avoiding
>carnality ... gluttony & sin.
>This gentleman's concluding remarks regarding the high % of marine fish
>in Stirling Man's diet was that it represented the standard diet of the
>army & was also the one expected for a pious Christion knight.
>A J
>(One again recommending this video for the comparisons & contrasts with
>the evaluation of Richard's remains).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It seems likely that they will; that's what was done with the Romanov remains. I don't expect that any such decision will be highly publicized, as there are a lot of people who might be terribly upset. (Even as we concede the necessity.)

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> They SHOULD [I feel] retain small specimens of the remains IN CASE new tests become available in future years. 
>
> The Victorian exhumation of Edward IV would have been interesting, The body was said to be in excellent state of preservation.
>
> I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the time. 
> [Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur Wright.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: "ajhibbard@..." <ajhibbard@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Friday, 22 February 2013, 14:49
> >Subject: Marine diet
> >
> >
> > 
> >In the episode of History Cold Case - Stirling Man, the investigators
> >discovered that their individual (death radio carbon dated to between
> >1290 & 1400) had consumed a diet 30% derived from marine fish (which, if
> >I'm recalling correctly, is very close to the percentage for Richard).
> >They had already determined that this individual was most likely a
> >knight, & English. They then talked to Prof Chris Woolgar, University
> >of Southampton, who made a number of interesting points, which may be
> >relevant to a discussion of what Richard's remains tell us about him.
> >These points were(1) there was a thriving industry in the preservation
> >of fish(2) the English army was provisioned with a lot of this dried
> >fish (Exchequer records, I assume from the era of Stirling Man) suggest
> >that such fish made up about 1/3 of the diet of soldiers(3) eating fish
> >was linked to their conception of religious virtue "fish is most like
> >the food men will eat in Paradise" and represented a way of avoiding
> >carnality ... gluttony & sin.
> >This gentleman's concluding remarks regarding the high % of marine fish
> >in Stirling Man's diet was that it represented the standard diet of the
> >army & was also the one expected for a pious Christion knight.
> >A J
> >(One again recommending this video for the comparisons & contrasts with
> >the evaluation of Richard's remains).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Ooh - yes. If it contains any hair follicles with viable DNA we'd be able to settle once and for all whether Edward was Richard's brother, or his *half*-brother. [snip]

Carol responds:

John Ashdown-Hill states in "The Last Days of Richard III" that he obtained a sample of Edward's hair from the Ashmolean Museum but the DNA was too degraded to be useful. (Sorry I can't provide a page number because my book is the Kindle version, but it's in a note.)

Carol

Henry took the throne by right of conquest, not through his wife, So everything that has gone afterwards has rested on that, not any claim through his wife.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 24 February 2013, 12:53
Subject: Re: Marine diet

 

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Marine diet

> I wonder who NOW has the ring made containing Edward's Hair removed at the
> time.
[Said ring appeared on the 'Antiques Roadshow'.]

Ooh - yes. If it contains any hair follicles with viable DNA we'd be able
to settle once and for all whether Edward was Richard's brother, or his
*half*-brother. Personally I think he probably was the son of the Duke of
York, and just a bit premature - but if he turned out not to be it would
cause a stink because it would mean the Tudors had the throne *only* by
Henry's rather thin Lancastrian claim and by conquest, since it would mean
Elizabeth of York wasn't a direct descendant of Richard Duke of York, not
even a bastard one.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Marine diet


> Henry took the throne by right of conquest, not through his wife, So
> everything that has gone afterwards has rested on that, not any claim
> through his wife.

But subsequent generations of Royals are proud of their descent from this
line of kings which might in fact be partially untrue.

Regarding the marine diet, it's not enough just to say that the knight at
Stirling had a similar diet, because he was an ordinary knight and probably
had to eat what he was given. Richard could afford to eat swan every day if
he wanted to, so the high fish diet must mean either that he liked fish, or
that he felt some religious obligation to eat a lot of fish, or that he had
consciously decided to live on the same rations as his men.

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Henry took the throne by right of conquest, not through his wife, So everything that has gone afterwards has rested on that, not any claim through his wife.

Carol responds:

Yes and no. You're right about Henry VII, who was careful to postpone both his wedding and his coronation to make sure that everyone knew that he was not claiming the throne through his wife. But Henry VIII, perhaps recognizing the shakiness of his father's claim (whether by right of conquest or his extremely weak Lancastrian associations) apparently claimed the throne through his mother (and that claim was also questionable since despite all the blackening of Richard's name and the burning of Titulus Regius, some Europeans knew about the precontract and its implications for Edward IV's descendants, including Elizabeth of York's surviving son.

The Charles V's ambassador to England, Eustace Chapuys, told Charles that he had a better claim than Henry VIII to the English throne because Henry "claims only by his mother, who was declared
by sentence of the Bishop of Bath a bastard, because Edward had espoused another wife before the mother of Elizabeth of York" (Kendall's note, p. 555).

Carol

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Regarding the marine diet, it's not enough just to say that the knight at Stirling had a similar diet, because he was an ordinary knight and probably had to eat what he was given. Richard could afford to eat swan every day if he wanted to, so the high fish diet must mean either that he liked fish, or that he felt some religious obligation to eat a lot of fish, or that he had consciously decided to live on the same rations as his men.

Carol responds:

Both of them were Catholic, as were all Englishmen of the time, which meant that they had to eat fish rather than meat during Lent, Advent, and other penitential seasons, as well as on Fridays. That would nicely account for the 30 percent of Richard's diet that was fish rather than meat. I don't know the percentages for Stirling man, but a percentage similar to Richard's would indicate that he was at least a knight and could eat well--if you ignore the general absence of vegetables. The upper class did have access to fruit and nuts, which, of course, were luxuries.

Carol

Maybe fish was easier for him to eat when he was missing all but one of his molars?

(I still wonder if he didn't grind his teeth and crack his molars. Maybe the next documentary will tell us.)

~Weds


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

.
.
.

> Regarding the marine diet, it's not enough just to say that the knight at
> Stirling had a similar diet, because he was an ordinary knight and probably
> had to eat what he was given. Richard could afford to eat swan every day if
> he wanted to, so the high fish diet must mean either that he liked fish, or
> that he felt some religious obligation to eat a lot of fish, or that he had
> consciously decided to live on the same rations as his men.
>