steel corsets

By a long and roundabout route I won't bore you with, a message has come back to me from an American member of the Society for Creative Anachronisms, a guy who fights a lot wearing repro armour, saying:

"I can say without doubt that one of the things that helped my fighting career was a tight body harness, supporting my back muscles, for sure."

Richard's armour would probably have been very close-fitting, since skin-tight "German Gothic" armour was the fashion for those who could afford it, and it would have been custom-fitted. So that answers the question of how he could wield weapons while suffering from severe scoliosis: he had his own built-in back support. It may even have helped to prevent his back from getting any worse, since the armour would tend to hold him in the shape he had been when the armour was fitted. And he was probably more comfortable in armour than he was out of it.

Interesting. So he was uncomfortable for the majority of his life then.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
And he was probably more comfortable in armour than he was out of it.
>
>
>
>
>

From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Interesting. So he was uncomfortable for the majority of his life then.

Not necessarily all the time, but at least intermittently, probably yes.
This group http://www.scoliosis-support.org/archive/index.php?t-15452.html
is a scoliosis support group who are discussing Richard, and they comment
that someone with scoliosis can basically do anything a straight-backed
person can do except it hurts more.

And Richard, of course, didn't need to wash himself or dress himself or tack
his own horse or open and close doors for himself or bend down to pick up
something he'd dropped or reach up to get something off a high shelf,
because he would have had an army of servants hovering to do these things
for him. The only physically strenuous things he needed to do were ride a
horse, have sex and wield weapons and the armour would have been a big help
with the last one.

Yes, but only for a few mopnths perhaps, of his entire life.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> > Interesting. So he was uncomfortable for the majority of his life then.
>
> Not necessarily all the time, but at least intermittently, probably yes.
> This group http://www.scoliosis-support.org/archive/index.php?t-15452.html
> is a scoliosis support group who are discussing Richard, and they comment
> that someone with scoliosis can basically do anything a straight-backed
> person can do except it hurts more.
>
> And Richard, of course, didn't need to wash himself or dress himself or tack
> his own horse or open and close doors for himself or bend down to pick up
> something he'd dropped or reach up to get something off a high shelf,
> because he would have had an army of servants hovering to do these things
> for him. The only physically strenuous things he needed to do were ride a
> horse, have sex and wield weapons and the armour would have been a big help
> with the last one.
>

Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not? As for sex, well...he might not have had to do all the work. I'm quite sure a man like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly inventive ladies.

Sandra

From: blancsanglier1452
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Yes, but only for a few months perhaps, of his entire life.

I'm not sure how you mean that. He spent a lot of his time as a soldier and
he would have had to keep in practice in between, although I suppose if you
add up the actual hours involved they might only add up to a few months.


From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not?

I don't know if they existed, but if they did he would have had access to
whatever was available.

> As for sex, well...he might not have had to do all the work. I'm quite
> sure a man like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly
> inventive ladies.

Fer sure!

I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not? As for sex, well...he might not have had to do all the work. I’m quite sure a man like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly inventive ladies.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>

Of my many previous lives, I do remember that one, but modesty and discretion prevent me from elaborating.

Sandra

Having been distracted into looking at various medieval marginalia last
night, I suspect "the medievals" were pretty far from Victorian.

A J

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 8:52 AM, mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's
> responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much
> as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If
> you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age
> of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked.
> Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women
> would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I
> mean, is it?
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin"
> <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not? As for sex,
> well...he might not have had to do all the work. Iýýým quite sure a man
> like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly inventive ladies.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Which I find to be such a puzzle, as Victoria and Albert spent quite a bit of time between the sheets, judging from the number of children.......

On Mar 10, 2013, at 9:06 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:



I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not? As for sex, well...he might not have had to do all the work. Iýýým quite sure a man like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly inventive ladies.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Having been distracted into looking at various medieval marginalia last
> night, I suspect "the medievals" were pretty far from Victorian.
>
> A J
>


To be fair, even the Victorians were pretty far from Victorian, much of the time ;)

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>


No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)

I know with my scoliosis, if I stand too long my back hurts and I go sit in a supportive chair and it is eased. If I sit in an uncomfortable chair too long I stand and it is eased. I guess what I am saying is you learn how to handle the pain. When you live with something like this you know what to do to make it better
Vickie

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 10, 2013, at 7:51 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: blancsanglier1452
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> > Interesting. So he was uncomfortable for the majority of his life then.
>
> Not necessarily all the time, but at least intermittently, probably yes.
> This group http://www.scoliosis-support.org/archive/index.php?t-15452.html
> is a scoliosis support group who are discussing Richard, and they comment
> that someone with scoliosis can basically do anything a straight-backed
> person can do except it hurts more.
>
> And Richard, of course, didn't need to wash himself or dress himself or tack
> his own horse or open and close doors for himself or bend down to pick up
> something he'd dropped or reach up to get something off a high shelf,
> because he would have had an army of servants hovering to do these things
> for him. The only physically strenuous things he needed to do were ride a
> horse, have sex and wield weapons and the armour would have been a big help
> with the last one.
>
>

  Despite the Efforts of the Pre-Raphaelites, John Ruskin, Augustus Welby Pugin, William Morris & the 'Rest of the Gang'?? 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:19
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>
>> Having been distracted into looking at various medieval marginalia last
>> night, I suspect "the medievals" were pretty far from Victorian.
>>
>> A J
>>
>
>To be fair, even the Victorians were pretty far from Victorian, much of the time ;)
>
>
>
>
>

You tell Em Babe!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Vickie <lolettecook@...>
>To: "" <>
>Cc: "<>" <>
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:31
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>I know with my scoliosis, if I stand too long my back hurts and I go sit in a supportive chair and it is eased. If I sit in an uncomfortable chair too long I stand and it is eased. I guess what I am saying is you learn how to handle the pain. When you live with something like this you know what to do to make it better
>Vickie
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>On Mar 10, 2013, at 7:51 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>> From: blancsanglier1452
>> To:
>> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 12:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: steel corsets
>>
>> > Interesting. So he was uncomfortable for the majority of his life then.
>>
>> Not necessarily all the time, but at least intermittently, probably yes.
>> This group http://www.scoliosis-support.org/archive/index.php?t-15452.html
>> is a scoliosis support group who are discussing Richard, and they comment
>> that someone with scoliosis can basically do anything a straight-backed
>> person can do except it hurts more.
>>
>> And Richard, of course, didn't need to wash himself or dress himself or tack
>> his own horse or open and close doors for himself or bend down to pick up
>> something he'd dropped or reach up to get something off a high shelf,
>> because he would have had an army of servants hovering to do these things
>> for him. The only physically strenuous things he needed to do were ride a
>> horse, have sex and wield weapons and the armour would have been a big help
>> with the last one.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Somehow I can't imagine Jane Shore' simply lying there, thinking of England...

Sandra

I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault.  It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted.  H 

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>

No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)

No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church. 

[I understand Even then, 'Do not enjoy it, use it Only for Procreation'!!

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)


Now that would be 'Human', of course SEE the 'Penalties' [See both some of the ''Wall Paintings' showing scenes of 'Damnation', - Slightly earlier but 'Extant & surviving'  - Read None ricardian 'A Month in the Country' [Movie with Colin Firth & the N.I. Knight star of Henry V??]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:15
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault.  It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted.  H 
>
>________________________________
>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>>
>> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>>
>
>No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.
>
>Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Cranmer had changed the law to allow clerical marriage. Earlier prelates had illegitimate children, a different matter.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets



I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault. It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted. H

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
Subject: Re: steel corsets



--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>

No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)

That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:27
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church. 

[I understand Even then, 'Do not enjoy it, use it Only for Procreation'!!

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)

Now that would be 'Human', of course SEE the 'Penalties' [See both some of the ''Wall Paintings' showing scenes of 'Damnation', - Slightly earlier but 'Extant & surviving'  - Read None ricardian 'A Month in the Country' [Movie with Colin Firth & the N.I. Knight star of Henry V??]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:15
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault.  It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted.  H 
>
>________________________________
>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>>
>> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>>
>
>No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.
>
>Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes I know that; but he had a 'wife' before he changed the law, although not in name.



________________________________
From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:44
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

Cranmer had changed the law to allow clerical marriage. Earlier prelates had illegitimate children, a different matter.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets

I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault. It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted. H

________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
Subject: Re: steel corsets

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>

No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.

Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check
> out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child
> you will find that many were pregnant at the altar.

Nearly all the first-born in my family were born within a few months of
their parents' marriage - and not necessarily *after* it. Studies show that
even in the 1950s, a superficially "proper" era, a third of British women
went to the altar pregnant.

In some areas in the Highlands of Scotland it was the custom, once a couple
were actually engaged, for the girl's father to leave a handy ladder lying
about in the yard. And one of my favourite jokes - which is all too
probable - concerns two old Welsh countrywomen watching a local girl walk
past, and one turns to the other and says "Getting married and not even
pregnant - there's posh!"

I remember reading somewhere that during the Victorian era the Cockneys in
London largely gave up on formal marriage, and of course here in Scotland we
had until only a few years ago "marriage by habit and repute" - which
basically means that if you live together as husband and wife for several
years, you *are* husband and wife - and we used to have handfast marriages,
which were perfectly legal and produced legitimate children, but had to be
renewed annually.

In Orkney, until only a few centuries ago, you could get married by entering
St Magnus Cathedral separately through the side doors and exiting together
through the main door in front of witnesses, and get divorced by reversing
this procedure.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>
>

Apologies - I was joking. That was my (badly expressed) point, really: just human beings, the lot of them.

(What I actually (badly, jokingly) said was that 'even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes' - as in, no matter what the Church said. And I wasn't talking about women's sexual pleasure so much as the question of men doing all the work in bed.)

No wonder Edward IV had problems remembering who he was married to! :-) 

--- On Sun, 10/3/13, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
Subject: Re: steel corsets
To:
Date: Sunday, 10 March, 2013, 16:11

 Studies show that

even in the 1950s, a superficially "proper" era, a third of British women

went to the altar pregnant.



In some areas in the Highlands of Scotland it was the custom, once a couple

were actually engaged, for the girl's father to leave a handy ladder lying

about in the yard. And one of my favourite jokes - which is all too

probable - concerns two old Welsh countrywomen watching a local girl walk

past, and one turns to the other and says "Getting married and not even

pregnant - there's posh!"



I remember reading somewhere that during the Victorian era the Cockneys in

London largely gave up on formal marriage, and of course here in Scotland we

had until only a few years ago "marriage by habit and repute" - which

basically means that if you live together as husband and wife for several

years, you *are* husband and wife - and we used to have handfast marriages,

which were perfectly legal and produced legitimate children, but had to be

renewed annually.



In Orkney, until only a few centuries ago, you could get married by entering

St Magnus Cathedral separately through the side doors and exiting together

through the main door in front of witnesses, and get divorced by reversing

this procedure.

  It would have offered back 'Support' [We still use Back Braces, Splints & other devices.]
 His back may have even felt 'Better' in a well fitting breastplate. [So called 'Yorkist Armour' was at a high level of design]

As for getting 'Worse' ?

  The Leading 'Suspect' for late onset [age ten] Scoliosis is T.B., Nothing, except perhaps a miracle in his own 'Bodily Defences' which, as a consequence overcame the T.B. Infection would have helped.
  Had he 'Won' at Bosworth the onset of  'Old age' and the progression of the disease would have exacerbated the back condition.

  In my own [None T.B.] case which involves my knee [Hospital acquired infection] 
Infection in Bone is VERY difficult to treat due to poor bone blood supply 
[Bone is largely mineral, not organic.]

Also my 'Lower Back' [Due to lifting heavy patients in my early career] Another problem that I, & doubtless Richard would have encountered as he aged, was that of  Henry VIII when his Jousting Days were over, I, He & Henry put on/would put on weight due to enforced inactivity.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 12:10
>Subject: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>By a long and roundabout route I won't bore you with, a message has come back to me from an American member of the Society for Creative Anachronisms, a guy who fights a lot wearing repro armour, saying:
>
>"I can say without doubt that one of the things that helped my fighting career was a tight body harness, supporting my back muscles, for sure."
>
>Richard's armour would probably have been very close-fitting, since skin-tight "German Gothic" armour was the fashion for those who could afford it, and it would have been custom-fitted. So that answers the question of how he could wield weapons while suffering from severe scoliosis: he had his own built-in back support. It may even have helped to prevent his back from getting any worse, since the armour would tend to hold him in the shape he had been when the armour was fitted. And he was probably more comfortable in armour than he was out of it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  I think that the people then were exactly as Now, however they did Not have the advantage of a number of our areas of knowledge, In my view these especially include: Darwin, Copernicus/Galileo, Pasteur [Nature of infection.] 

Of course there Are others, The Feudal System / Hierarchical Society, Death Penalty, & Religion.
[The Current Catholic News from both Rome & Scotland.] Legal Framework of Constraints on the Powerful, The Media.

  All of these Affected Them & Affect Us in more than we can understand without a 'Time Machine'.

  As for 'Controlling Women' some behaviours need 'Controlling', but then do those of Men.

 As an 'Old F@rt' I sometimes think half the world is hell bent on becoming more 'Tattooed & Foul Mouthed' than an Old Time Navy Stoker, While the rest are putting more 'Strange White Powder' up their nose, [At Great expense]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:53
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:27
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church. 
>
>[I understand Even then, 'Do not enjoy it, use it Only for Procreation'!!
>
>Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)
>
>Now that would be 'Human', of course SEE the 'Penalties' [See both some of the ''Wall Paintings' showing scenes of 'Damnation', - Slightly earlier but 'Extant & surviving'  - Read None ricardian 'A Month in the Country' [Movie with Colin Firth & the N.I. Knight star of Henry V??]
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 15:15
>>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>>
>>
>> 
>>I wouldn't usually wade into this but our pre-conceptions about how women in history were supposed to behave sexually has come from Victorian times and were Victoria's own backlash against her debauched uncles. Some would claim this was a way of controlling middle and upper class women in Victorian times. Wellington and Napoleon shared the same mistresses! There was the issue of contraception of course but I think if you check out your ancestors' marriage dates against the birth of their first child you will find that many were pregnant at the altar. The Church's teachings and its practices were two different things - Cranmer had a 'wife'. Mistresses for the upper classes in Richard's days were de rigeur. Think of Alice Perrers in a previous century: no-one doubts Edward III's devotion to Philippa of Hainault.  It tended to be if a mistress became too influential that things got difficult and jealousies errupted.  H 
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>>To:
>>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 14:30
>>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>>
>> 
>>
>>--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>>>
>>
>>No doubt they would have, but as far as I can tell, pretty much anything other than the man being on top would have been considered sinful by the Church.
>>
>>Then again - what wasn't considered sinful by the Church?! I suppose what people actually *did* would have been different from what they were 'supposed' to do. I'm guessing even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes. ;)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] This group http://www.scoliosis-support.org/archive/index.php?t-15452.html is a scoliosis support group who are discussing Richard, and they comment that someone with scoliosis can basically do anything a straight-backed person can do except it hurts more. [snip]

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for that link, Claire. Someone on that site has posted the following message:

Saw this on the Scoliosis Association UK Fb page showing the Scoliosis Association's outrage at the use of the word "hunchback" in the Channel 4 documentary:

"A royal condition. DNA results confirm that skeleton discovered in a car park in Leicester is that of King Richard III

"Yesterday, scientists were able to confirm that a skeleton discovered in a car park in Leicester was indeed that of King Richard III. In addition to the evidence of horrific injuries that lead [sic] to the King's death, the most striking aspect of the King's skeleton was his curved spine, confirming the presence of scoliosis. During his short reign, King Richard III rode horses in full body armour and wielded a sword in battle, demonstrating that scoliosis doesn't necessarily limit physical capability.

"Last night, Channel 4 broadcast a documentary which followed the story leading to the discovery of the King's skeleton. Since the news broke and the Channel 4 program was aired, we have received a number of calls and emails about the use of certain language and how it can make people affected by scoliosis feel. We understand people's sensitivity over the use of the language describing the King's condition and have also received a number of press enquiries today regarding the matter.

"In response to the Channel 4 documentary, Linda Anderson, SAUK London Regional Representative, and Laura Campbell, SAUK Midlands Regional Representative, are writing a letter of complaint to the broadcasting channel and production company. The Chairman of the BSRF, Michael Edgar, has also written a letter to the Times to emphasise the importance of scoliosis research in light of this new discovery.

"Despite the negative language used in Channel 4's documentary and in some of the news stories, the discovery of Richard III's skeleton is a very interesting finding which will hopefully raise awareness of scoliosis and bring the condition to the public eye for discussion. SAUK will continue to support further action and will keep all our members and supported updated. If you have been affected by this story, please feel free to contact the Helpline on 020 8964 1166 or e-mail info@.... (JB)"

http;//www.sauk.org.uk/news/123/64/A-royal-condition.html

I've added http:// and omitted quotation marks so that the URL will link.

Good to know that scoliosis sufferers have had exactly the reaction we hoped they would have and have spoken out so effectively. (The second, More 4, documentary seems to show the results of this protest (better late than never).

Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a suit of armor made for a teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said that it was made for a boy with scoliosis (Richard)? but the other said that it was made in the 1500s for a boy with lumbar curvature and crooked hips (clearly not Richard). Does anyone know about this suit of armor and which description, if either, is correct? I thought that Warwick Castle was no longer occupied and already starting to fall apart in the 1500s.

I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in the middle of this photo could have belonged to Richard:

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/

The right shoulder seems a little higher than the left but otherwise, it looks similar to the one on the left, made for a bigger and presumably older man. I don't know enough about armor to know whether the date is correct (should be mid- to late 1460s if the boy is Richard), but he would not yet have fought any battles if it was made for him while he was with Warwick, or 1471 if it was made for Tewkesbury or Barnet). BTW, Bertram Fields remarks, I think correctly, that if there had been anything about Richard's armor at Bosworth that distinctively announced "deformity," Henry VII would have used the armor as a propaganda tool.

Carol

Carol

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Having been distracted into looking at various medieval marginalia last night, I suspect "the medievals" were pretty far from Victorian.

Carol responds:

Or puritanical, as Richard is sometimes anachronistically accused of being since he was by all indications opposed to adultery (a completely different matter from premarital sex in the England of his time both from the standpoint of religion and of property and titles).

As for "medieval" enjoyment of sex, we need only read Chaucer and Shakespeare to see how bawdy the humor of the times could be. Richard was sandwiched between those two literary eras. Even if he disliked the sort of humor that would have made Edward guffaw, he may have enjoyed sex itself (with the right woman). Joana of Portugal? Well, who knows. Maybe he would have charmed her out of her nunlike propensities.

Carol

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 4:41 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> The Leading 'Suspect' for late onset [age ten] Scoliosis is T.B.,

I'm not sure about the *leading* suspect. Scoliosis sometimes just happens
when the spine grows faster than the body can keep up with. Sometimes it
happens due to the developing spine being pulled out of kilter by muscle
imbalance caused by a pre-existing injury. I'm still hoping that the team
who are exmaining his bones will comment on whether the damage to his right
shoulder blade happened in life or post mortem, but I'm not holding my
breath because they haven't even made a connection between the fact that
they only found one, rather wasted-looking phalanx from his right little
finger and the fact that his right little finger in the NPG portrait is
unnaturally short and looks as though he'd probably lost part of it in
battle.

> Also my 'Lower Back' [Due to lifting heavy patients in my early career]

At the hospital where I worked in the 1990s, *everybody* had to learn how to
lift heavy objects without hurting themselves - even admin. staff like me.

> Another problem that I, & doubtless Richard would have encountered as he
> aged, was that of Henry VIII when his Jousting Days were over, I, He &
> Henry put on/would put on weight due to enforced inactivity.

Henry had great big jousting muscles which then turned to fat when he
stopped using them, though. Richard by all acocunts was slender even when
he was in fighting form, so he would probably never have put on much weight.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Or puritanical, as Richard is sometimes anachronistically accused of being since he was by all indications opposed to adultery (a completely different matter from premarital sex in the England of his time both from the standpoint of religion and of property and titles).
>


This is of course pure speculation, but I've always wondered...

If we assume that the three York boys all loved their wives, Edward was still the only one of them who had made an utterly imprudent (read: idiotic) match in the name of 'love'. And *still* he kept on cheating on his wife.

One doesn't have to be puritanical - or even fond of one's sister-in-law - to disapprove of that whole scenario.

Of course Richard's views would have been formed by religion as well as his strong sense of duty and loalty, but I wonder to what extent his apparently strong views on adultery in particular would have been affected by indignation and sheer disbelief at his brother's conduct: first to sacrifice duty to 'love', and then to show so little respect for that love...!

I wondered about this teenage armour too when I saw the post. I am going to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this month and will see if I can accost the curator and ask him his view. If not, I'll email him. 

--- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:




Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a suit of armor made for a teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said that it was made for a boy with scoliosis (Richard)? 

I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in the middle of this photo could have belonged to Richard:



http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/

.

If these armor(s?) were custom made - the larger suit appears to have a
right lower leg that is smaller in circumference than the left; it might
also be interesting to ask about that.

A J

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I wondered about this teenage armour too when I saw the post. I am going
> to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this month and will see if I
> can accost the curator and ask him his view. If not, I'll email him.
>
>
> --- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a suit of armor made for a
> teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said that it was made for a
> boy with scoliosis (Richard)?
>
> I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in the middle of this photo
> could have belonged to Richard:
>
> http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>

[Grinning.] It's been remarked that Victoria wasn't precisely Victorian.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Which I find to be such a puzzle, as Victoria and Albert spent quite a bit of time between the sheets, judging from the number of children.......
>
> On Mar 10, 2013, at 9:06 AM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I have the impression that the idea that sex was pretty much the guy's responsibility, and that women were not expected to enjoy it just as much as men did, appears to stem from upper-middle-class Victorian society. If you were part of medieval society, presumably you couldn't get to the age of engaging in sexual activity without a right good idea of how it worked. Factor in a handsome, intelligent, thoughtful lover, and I'm certain women would have... er... risen to the occasion isn't exactly the expression I mean, is it?
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Is it possible he wore a back brace more often than not? As for sex, well...he might not have had to do all the work. I’m quite sure a man like that would not lack for eager, discreet, exceedingly inventive ladies.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

   Two 'Small' but somewhat later suits of armour are about somewhere, One for the Son of Elizabeth's favourite Robert Dudley who lies buried with his parents in Warwick Parish Church. [Several marvellous'effigies' here.] The other for Charles 1st when a young man.[Prince] Charles was very Small.

  I really would commend the viewing of both Monumental Brasses & Effigies in Churches [The Website of the Monumental Brass Society is very much worth a look. The development of Arms & Armour can be followed from early 'Chain Mail' to the Cromwellian period.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 0:00
>Subject: Re: Scoliosis support group, Richard, and armor (Was: steel corsets)
>
>If these armor(s?) were custom made - the larger suit appears to have a
>right lower leg that is smaller in circumference than the left; it might
>also be interesting to ask about that.
>
>A J
>
>On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I wondered about this teenage armour too when I saw the post. I am going
>> to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this month and will see if I
>> can accost the curator and ask him his view. If not, I'll email him.
>>
>>
>> --- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>> Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a suit of armor made for a
>> teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said that it was made for a
>> boy with scoliosis (Richard)?
>>
>> I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in the middle of this photo
>> could have belonged to Richard:
>>
>> http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Claire, 
          I worked in a 'Regional Spinal Injuries Unit,' rather earlier than 1990, 
I am Professionally Qualified X Four Tickets & was an Assessor & Examiner for the 'General Nursing Council'. 
  
I hate to disagree but the reason Admin Staff of 1990s had to have 'Lifting Training' was that those of us who went before had NONE. [Cost the N.H.S. a lot in sickness/early retirement]. 

Weight Gain: I saw 'Spinally Injured Jockeys' put on Weight!! 
How you can surmise this would NOT happen to Richard, several hundred years on amazes me!!.

You are correct in that preliminary reports of his mortal remains indicate his bones were 'Gracile,' 
[Slim, bordering on the feminine in some respects, according to the Osteo-Archaeologist.]
Though his physical abilities seem unimpaired. [Up to his death.]
  
That would NOT prohibit him from some weight gain in middle age, many of us do, 
Especially if his back condition reduced his physical activity levels.

  Of course his Scoliosis might be due to injury incurred in 'Training for Knighthood' under Warwick, however the death of his Wife & Son suggest T.B. was probably endemic in the North, 
if not elsewhere as well.

  In my time in Merseyside Regional Spinal Injuries Unit [& Elsewhere] I never encountered Scoliosis of this type other than T.B. in the Vertebra or Birth Trauma. 

   A fall from a horse can of course cause 'Spinal Injury' 
[Tragically our unit catered for a number of 'Fall Injured Jockeys' from the Grand National @ Aintree.]

  Falls on Building Sites, Diving Accidents, Trampolines, R.T.A.s and Riding were the main causes of spinal injuries then. 

A 'Scoliosis' of the same severity as Richard's would have been 'Gradual' or Paralysis 
would have been Very Likely.

Kind Regards,

 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 19:24
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 4:41 PM
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>> The Leading 'Suspect' for late onset [age ten] Scoliosis is T.B.,
>
>I'm not sure about the *leading* suspect. Scoliosis sometimes just happens
>when the spine grows faster than the body can keep up with. Sometimes it
>happens due to the developing spine being pulled out of kilter by muscle
>imbalance caused by a pre-existing injury. I'm still hoping that the team
>who are exmaining his bones will comment on whether the damage to his right
>shoulder blade happened in life or post mortem, but I'm not holding my
>breath because they haven't even made a connection between the fact that
>they only found one, rather wasted-looking phalanx from his right little
>finger and the fact that his right little finger in the NPG portrait is
>unnaturally short and looks as though he'd probably lost part of it in
>battle.
>
>> Also my 'Lower Back' [Due to lifting heavy patients in my early career]
>
>At the hospital where I worked in the 1990s, *everybody* had to learn how to
>lift heavy objects without hurting themselves - even admin. staff like me.
>
>> Another problem that I, & doubtless Richard would have encountered as he
>> aged, was that of Henry VIII when his Jousting Days were over, I, He &
>> Henry put on/would put on weight due to enforced inactivity.
>
>Henry had great big jousting muscles which then turned to fat when he
>stopped using them, though. Richard by all acocunts was slender even when
>he was in fighting form, so he would probably never have put on much weight.
>
>
>
>
>

Not a problem Arthur!
 
You ask us a lot and I certainly had a go at answering your question about whether I would still support Richard if (against my beliefs) he was found to have had a hand in the supposed murder of his nephews. I recall McJohn gave the most eloquent answer. I just wondered where you stand on this? What is the particular attraction of Richard to you; because he could have been 'disabled', because he was a king for the 'common man', because he was ahead of his time? And how do you feel about the nephew issue? I'm really a bit unsure from some of your questions and answers; but that could be just me.
 
BTW I think the best thing that this forum has done for me (as well as the good company) is that it has made me sit down and sort out in my own head what I really believe. I found that a really hard discipline, despite many years of interest in the subject.  H.


________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 16:04
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>
>

Apologies - I was joking. That was my (badly expressed) point, really: just human beings, the lot of them.

(What I actually (badly, jokingly) said was that 'even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes' - as in, no matter what the Church said. And I wasn't talking about women's sexual pleasure so much as the question of men doing all the work in bed.)

  Perhaps I start by getting peoples backs up [No pun intended] by my E-Mail Address: 'Lancastrian' 
[I was born in Lancashire & Live there, hence the address!! No other reason.]

  When I see Richard [Like the rest of us?] As a 'Flawed Man', Painted in a corner by events, 
The death of his father [& an older, but young brother] at Wakefield, Clarence,[Was it Edward or the Woodvilles?] Warwick, [My own father died in War] 
I both admire & have mixed feelings [If he killed the 'Princes'] Perhaps 'Uniquely' I have worked with Spinal Injuries Professionally & in the latter years as a Senior 'Forensic Psychiatric Nurse Manager' some of my work involved what used to be called 'Capital Cases', in some cases those who had killed children & in one of these in which the bodies had NOT all been found.

  Perhaps you can then guess the 'Genesis' of my interest?
 
  I have read & travelled extensively when I was younger & fitter, I was once very interested in local history [Lord Stanley/ Thomas, 1st Earl of Derby is buried in nearby Ormskirk. 

As well as being [Thankfully only in old age] a bit disabled by back & knee problems & also having a degree of professional knowledge of Materia-Medica, I am also interested in the 'Camp Followers' of men such as Richard, [Both Ancient &  Modern]

  Richard remains, to any age, a 'Conundrum', one that has recently emerged into our spotlight, 
hence my email box containing 999+ Emails!!

Finally, I really AM grateful for the help & Scholarship of some contributors shown, with patience, to me. 
If some of my stuff is, on occasion, a 'Bit Garbled,' Two hours sleep a night & enough tablets to 'Sink the Hesperus'!! 

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 10:12
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>Not a problem Arthur!
> 
>You ask us a lot and I certainly had a go at answering your question about whether I would still support Richard if (against my beliefs) he was found to have had a hand in the supposed murder of his nephews. I recall McJohn gave the most eloquent answer. I just wondered where you stand on this? What is the particular attraction of Richard to you; because he could have been 'disabled', because he was a king for the 'common man', because he was ahead of his time? And how do you feel about the nephew issue? I'm really a bit unsure from some of your questions and answers; but that could be just me.
> 
>BTW I think the best thing that this forum has done for me (as well as the good company) is that it has made me sit down and sort out in my own head what I really believe. I found that a really hard discipline, despite many years of interest in the subject.  H.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 16:04
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>>
>>
>
>Apologies - I was joking. That was my (badly expressed) point, really: just human beings, the lot of them.
>
>(What I actually (badly, jokingly) said was that 'even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes' - as in, no matter what the Church said. And I wasn't talking about women's sexual pleasure so much as the question of men doing all the work in bed.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> I hate to disagree but the reason Admin Staff of 1990s had to have
> 'Lifting Training' was that those of us who went before had NONE. [Cost
> the N.H.S. a lot in sickness/early retirement].

I'm not disputing that - just saying that by my day they'd learned their
lesson and made lifting training compulsory. Also the advice had changed,
and improved. The trick is to stand as close to the object as possible,
bend down and grasp it whilst looing down, and then as you start to lift,
raise your chin and look up. The act of raising your chin forces your whole
spine to flex in such a way that you are lifting with your lumbar spine
concave, not convex. The advice which was given in your day resulted in
lifting with the lumbar spine convex, which provides far less support.

> Weight Gain: I saw 'Spinally Injured Jockeys' put on Weight!!
How you can surmise this would NOT happen to Richard, several hundred years
on amazes me!!.

OK. People like Henry VIII, and like a female weight-lifter I used to know,
who have bulky muscles, are liable to become very fat if they stop
exercising, because the muscles turn to fat (and for those connoisseurs of
typing errors amongst you I will admit here that I typed "turn to fart" and
then spotted and corrected it). But Richard is described by contemporaries
as very slender, so we know he didn't have those sort of muscles.

Jockeys are slender, but in many, possibly most cases jockeys are slender
because they habitually starve themselves, not because they are necessarily
slender by nature. Richard took a lot of vigorous exercise which would
build up his muscles if he was going to, and he had access to the very best
of food and had a diet which caused a lot of his teeth to fall out from
dental caries, suggesting he ate a lot of sugary treats which would probably
mean biscuits and sticky desserts with honey in them, but he was still very
slender. He also ate a lot of fish and afaik the commonest fish eaten in
London was salmon, also fattening, yet still he was slender. That suggests
that he was slender *by nature*, not as a result of dieting, and people who
are naturally skinny tend to get even scrawnier and more leathery as they
get older.

Also, if you have that sort of lean rather than bulky muscle it doesn't
necessarily go away even when you stop using it. I've mentioned before that
I have a friend who is in his 60s and who is thin bordering on emaciation,
and so whispy he looks as if he's made of cheese straws and a gust of wind
could blow him away. He has spent most of his life as a minor civil servant
in a desk job, and for 40+ years he has never, so far as I know, done
anything unusually physically strenuous. But 40+ years ago he spent two or
three summer holidays working on archaeological digs in the Hebrides,
driving a shovel through heavy clay, and as a result he is still
unbelievably strong. I'm a big, heavy lass and must weigh around twice what
he does, but I tripped and started to fall in his presence and he uncoiled
one long twig-like arm and caught me out of midair as effortlessly as if I
weighed a few ounces, and it was like being grabbed by some piece of steel
construction machinery.

I understand it's something to do with the kinds of fibres you have in your
muscles, rather than with actual muscle bulk. Whatever it is, Richard, who
was able to wield Mediaeval weapons successfully and fight in plate mail and
yet remain so skinny that it attracted comment, must have had the same sort
of lean persistent muscles as my archaeological friend.

> That would NOT prohibit him from some weight gain in middle age, many of
> us do,
Especially if his back condition reduced his physical activity levels.

My friend who has lateral scoliosis is in his early 50s and very slim -
although admittedly he's an actor and vain enough to take steps to make sure
he stays that way. But if both the reconstruction and the portraits are
accurate it looks like Richard was vain enough to pluck his eyebrows, so he
might well have been vain enough to watch his own weight, too, as he got
older.

> Of course his Scoliosis might be due to injury incurred in 'Training for
> Knighthood' under Warwick,

Or to a riding injury, yes. Horses are nearly as dangerous a mode of
transport as motorbikes, and broken bones due to both riding and
combat-training injuries must have been very common.

> A 'Scoliosis' of the same severity as Richard's would have been 'Gradual'
> or Paralysis
would have been Very Likely.

Yes - his body would have to have had time to adapt to it.

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Finally, I really AM grateful for the help & Scholarship of some
> contributors shown, with patience, to me.
If some of my stuff is, on occasion, a 'Bit Garbled,' Two hours sleep a
night & enough tablets to 'Sink the Hesperus'!!

Recent research shows that prior to the Industrial Revolution (and this
includes Richard's day and is therefore Historically Relevant) people
usually slept in two lots, referred to as First Sleep and Second Sleep.
They went to bed soon after dark, slept for a couple of hours, then woke
again for a couple of hours to have a small meal, read or talk or make love,
then back to sleep until morning. This seems to be a more natural human
sleep pattern than expecting just to go to bed at night and wake in the
morning.

So, if your sore knees etc wake you up after a few hours, don't beat
yourself up about it, do something else for an hour or so and then go back
to bed.

Piggybacking on this, I also know a man, a professional pianist, who is
about one inch taller than my five feet, and very, very slender - and also
lightweight.. But he is also extremely strong - you can see his muscles,
which are also slender, like cords around his arms and legs. He had an old
bicycle, which he called "the heap". On that bicycle, with me on the front
bar, he could go at a scarily-brisk pace for a long stretch of time. Was
also handy at lifting and hefting. I should also add that he had a
tremendous appetite, and my mother loved when he came over because there
would be no wasting of food.

Maria
ejbronte@...

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> ...... Also, if you have that sort of lean rather than bulky muscle it
> doesn't
> necessarily go away even when you stop using it. I've mentioned before
> that
> I have a friend who is in his 60s and who is thin bordering on emaciation,
> and so whispy he looks as if he's made of cheese straws and a gust of wind
> could blow him away. He has spent most of his life as a minor civil
> servant
> in a desk job, and for 40+ years he has never, so far as I know, done
> anything unusually physically strenuous. But 40+ years ago he spent two or
> three summer holidays working on archaeological digs in the Hebrides,
> driving a shovel through heavy clay, and as a result he is still
> unbelievably strong. I'm a big, heavy lass and must weigh around twice
> what
> he does, but I tripped and started to fall in his presence and he uncoiled
> one long twig-like arm and caught me out of midair as effortlessly as if I
> weighed a few ounces, and it was like being grabbed by some piece of steel
> construction machinery.
>
> I understand it's something to do with the kinds of fibres you have in
> your
> muscles, rather than with actual muscle bulk. Whatever it is, Richard, who
> was able to wield Mediaeval weapons successfully and fight in plate mail
> and
> yet remain so skinny that it attracted comment, must have had the same
> sort
> of lean persistent muscles as my archaeological friend.
>



> Activity:
>
> - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbTBpbjlrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjMwMDExOTU-?o=6>
> 16
> - New Files<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZzNiYTllBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZmaWxlcwRzdGltZQMxMzYzMDAxMTk1>
> 4
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmsxb2JuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2MzAwMTE5NQ-->
> [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdHV1cm1iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzYzMDAxMTk1>
> Switch to: Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>ý
> Unsubscribe<[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>ý Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> ý Send us Feedback
> <[email protected]?subject=Feedback+on+the+redesigned+individual+mail+v1>
> .
>
>
>

Thanks Arthur. So do you see any good in him, you see I would find it quite hard to admire someone who was the equivalent of a Moors Murderer, which is what you seem to be hinting at? In fact I'd find it quite hard to belong to a Society named after such a killer? By the way I have no problem with the Lancastrian thing, through history people have supported different factions. Some win, some lose. It's just the psychotic child murderer thing I find very hard to square and to be honest I did think you were hinting at that before  - or are you linking pain with potential killing?  Like you though, I certainly share the interest in his camp followers; if by that you mean the men who worked round him? I don't mean his sort of cult followers. Thanks though, for all this and a million apologies if I've misunderstood you, which is quite likely.  Regards  H
 

________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 11:15
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

  Perhaps I start by getting peoples backs up [No pun intended] by my E-Mail Address: 'Lancastrian' 
[I was born in Lancashire & Live there, hence the address!! No other reason.]

  When I see Richard [Like the rest of us?] As a 'Flawed Man', Painted in a corner by events, 
The death of his father [& an older, but young brother] at Wakefield, Clarence,[Was it Edward or the Woodvilles?] Warwick, [My own father died in War] 
I both admire & have mixed feelings [If he killed the 'Princes'] Perhaps 'Uniquely' I have worked with Spinal Injuries Professionally & in the latter years as a Senior 'Forensic Psychiatric Nurse Manager' some of my work involved what used to be called 'Capital Cases', in some cases those who had killed children & in one of these in which the bodies had NOT all been found.

  Perhaps you can then guess the 'Genesis' of my interest?
 
  I have read & travelled extensively when I was younger & fitter, I was once very interested in local history [Lord Stanley/ Thomas, 1st Earl of Derby is buried in nearby Ormskirk. 

As well as being [Thankfully only in old age] a bit disabled by back & knee problems & also having a degree of professional knowledge of Materia-Medica, I am also interested in the 'Camp Followers' of men such as Richard, [Both Ancient &  Modern]

  Richard remains, to any age, a 'Conundrum', one that has recently emerged into our spotlight, 
hence my email box containing 999+ Emails!!

Finally, I really AM grateful for the help & Scholarship of some contributors shown, with patience, to me. 
If some of my stuff is, on occasion, a 'Bit Garbled,' Two hours sleep a night & enough tablets to 'Sink the Hesperus'!! 

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 10:12
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>Not a problem Arthur!
> 
>You ask us a lot and I certainly had a go at answering your question about whether I would still support Richard if (against my beliefs) he was found to have had a hand in the supposed murder of his nephews. I recall McJohn gave the most eloquent answer. I just wondered where you stand on this? What is the particular attraction of Richard to you; because he could have been 'disabled', because he was a king for the 'common man', because he was ahead of his time? And how do you feel about the nephew issue? I'm really a bit unsure from some of your questions and answers; but that could be just me.
> 
>BTW I think the best thing that this forum has done for me (as well as the good company) is that it has made me sit down and sort out in my own head what I really believe. I found that a really hard discipline, despite many years of interest in the subject.  H.
>
>
>________________________________
>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 16:04
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>>
>>
>
>Apologies - I was joking. That was my (badly expressed) point, really: just human beings, the lot of them.
>
>(What I actually (badly, jokingly) said was that 'even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes' - as in, no matter what the Church said. And I wasn't talking about women's sexual pleasure so much as the question of men doing all the work in bed.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] He also ate a lot of fish and afaik the commonest fish eaten in London was salmon, also fattening, yet still he was slender. [snip]

Carol responds:

I agree with you that the evidence indicates that Richard was naturally slender (and kept so by exercise). These days, many young men of his age are starting to develop what we Americans call "beer bellies," but there is no indication in the contemporary descriptions that Richard was anything but slender. What would have happened to him had he lived longer, we don't know, but I very much doubt that he would ever have become grossly overweight like Edward IV and Henry VIII simply because he didn't overindulge in pleasures of the flesh, including overeating, as they did. Regarding his teeth, I think we should reserve judgment until we hear from the experts. The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury; those for which there are no holes were either congenitally missing or lost during his lifetime with time for the bone to heal, but whether they were from dental caries (none of which appear in the other teeth) or from an injury is impossible to tell at this point.

As for the fish being mostly salmon, I don't recall salmon being mentioned as one of the dishes served at the banquets he attended for which the menu is extant, but they would be easy to check. Kendall, for example, gives the courses served at a dinner given by the Earl of Warwick which Richard attended as a boy. What I do recall is that the people of York often gave him presents of fish or fowl ("xj swans and xj pike" in one letter that I just read. I also recall bream and sturgeon in addition to pike. A lot would depend upon the fish locally available. I can't recall whether it was the Ure or the Ouse that flowed nearby. (Richard was always having to deal with illegal fish garths.)

Carol

The Ouse in York. Yes, a lot of bream, sturgeon and pike and the odd swan. That together with gallons of red wine!!  H



________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 15:54
Subject: Re: steel corsets

 

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] He also ate a lot of fish and afaik the commonest fish eaten in London was salmon, also fattening, yet still he was slender. [snip]

Carol responds:

I agree with you that the evidence indicates that Richard was naturally slender (and kept so by exercise). These days, many young men of his age are starting to develop what we Americans call "beer bellies," but there is no indication in the contemporary descriptions that Richard was anything but slender. What would have happened to him had he lived longer, we don't know, but I very much doubt that he would ever have become grossly overweight like Edward IV and Henry VIII simply because he didn't overindulge in pleasures of the flesh, including overeating, as they did. Regarding his teeth, I think we should reserve judgment until we hear from the experts. The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury; those for which there are no holes were either congenitally missing or lost during his lifetime with time for the bone to heal, but whether they were from
dental caries (none of which appear in the other teeth) or from an injury is impossible to tell at this point.

As for the fish being mostly salmon, I don't recall salmon being mentioned as one of the dishes served at the banquets he attended for which the menu is extant, but they would be easy to check. Kendall, for example, gives the courses served at a dinner given by the Earl of Warwick which Richard attended as a boy. What I do recall is that the people of York often gave him presents of fish or fowl ("xj swans and xj pike" in one letter that I just read. I also recall bream and sturgeon in addition to pike. A lot would depend upon the fish locally available. I can't recall whether it was the Ure or the Ouse that flowed nearby. (Richard was always having to deal with illegal fish garths.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the
> grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury;

Or been lost in life, but recently. Anybody know how long it takes for the
holes to heal over? Leicester Uni's website is confusing as it shows a
photo' of Richard's skull (complete with weirdly tiny wisdom teeth, except
one is missing) with a caption saying that some of the missing teeth were
lost in life and some fell out in the grave, and then a body-text at the
side which says that *all* the missing teeth were lost in life.

> but whether they were from dental caries (none of which appear in the
> other teeth) or from an injury is impossible to tell at this point.

Dunno - the Leicester team specifically said on the documentary that they
were lost to dental caries, but they didn't say what the evidence was.

> As for the fish being mostly salmon, I don't recall salmon being mentioned
> as one of the dishes served at the banquets he attended for which the menu
> is extant, but they would be easy to check.

Perhaps it wasn't considered posh enough. I'm pretty sure it was in either
the 15th or the 16th C that the London apprentice boys rioted because they
were sick of being fed salmon at every meal. [I'm *absolutely* sure about
the riot and its cause - just not 100% sure of the date.]

> I can't recall whether it was the Ure or the Ouse that flowed nearby.

The Ure.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> The Ouse in York. Yes, a lot of bream, sturgeon and pike and the odd swan.
> That together with gallons of red wine!! H

Oh, yeah, sorry - I thought she was asking about the river near Middleham.

Carol earlier:

> > The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury;

Claire responded:
> Or been lost in life, but recently. Anybody know how long it takes for the holes to heal over? Leicester Uni's website is confusing as it shows a photo' of Richard's skull (complete with weirdly tiny wisdom teeth, except one is missing) with a caption saying that some of the missing teeth were lost in life and some fell out in the grave, and then a body-text at the side which says that *all* the missing teeth were lost in life. [snip]

Carol again:

The caption is almost certainly correct. I don't know how long it takes for the sockets (couldn't think of the correct term earlier) but I would guess about the same length of time that it takes to heal a broken bone. But here's an excerpt from an article about a forensic dentist whose job involves fitting missing teeth into their sockets in a human skull: "Some of the sockets are blunted and filled in, signs that the teeth were lost or extracted well before death. But others are empty and rimmed by clean, jagged bone, signs that the teeth fell out after death." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-25/news/1991084138_1_teeth-levy-dentist

It would be impossible to fit teeth into the healed part of Richard's jaw (clearly those teeth were lost during life but just when is probably impossible to determine), but easy to fit the missing incisor, wisdom tooth, and molar.

Like you, I noticed the oddly tiny wisdom teeth. I wonder how common that was for the era? These days, they're usually either impacted or congenitally missing.) Also, he seems to have no canine teeth. It looks to me as if he had the normal number of incisors, bicuspids. and molars (ignoring those that have fallen out), but I can't see any canines. Either than or the canines are oddly blunted and he's missing a set of bicuspids. the six- and twelve-year molars are normal sized, but the wisdom teeth look like baby teeth. Compare a normal adult upper jaw with wisdom teeth:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/teeth_in_upper_jaw.jpg

It would be interesting to see whether Edward IV exhibited a similar pattern. (Or Richard of Eastwell, who appears to be next on the list for exhumation.)

Carol

I just read, in "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" of course a century before Richard, but it said that teeth were not well cared for, and with the availability of sugar, people had a lot of dental carries. Teeth either fell out, or were extracted. They did chew a lot of fennel seeds, licorice, anise and things of that sort to keep fresh(er) breath. But then, adults commonly had lost several teeth, and the coarseness of bread caused a lot of wear and tear on the molars.
See page 200, and other pages in the book.


On Mar 11, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Carol earlier:

> > The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury;

Claire responded:
> Or been lost in life, but recently. Anybody know how long it takes for the holes to heal over? Leicester Uni's website is confusing as it shows a photo' of Richard's skull (complete with weirdly tiny wisdom teeth, except one is missing) with a caption saying that some of the missing teeth were lost in life and some fell out in the grave, and then a body-text at the side which says that *all* the missing teeth were lost in life. [snip]

Carol again:

The caption is almost certainly correct. I don't know how long it takes for the sockets (couldn't think of the correct term earlier) but I would guess about the same length of time that it takes to heal a broken bone. But here's an excerpt from an article about a forensic dentist whose job involves fitting missing teeth into their sockets in a human skull: "Some of the sockets are blunted and filled in, signs that the teeth were lost or extracted well before death. But others are empty and rimmed by clean, jagged bone, signs that the teeth fell out after death." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-25/news/1991084138_1_teeth-levy-dentist

It would be impossible to fit teeth into the healed part of Richard's jaw (clearly those teeth were lost during life but just when is probably impossible to determine), but easy to fit the missing incisor, wisdom tooth, and molar.

Like you, I noticed the oddly tiny wisdom teeth. I wonder how common that was for the era? These days, they're usually either impacted or congenitally missing.) Also, he seems to have no canine teeth. It looks to me as if he had the normal number of incisors, bicuspids. and molars (ignoring those that have fallen out), but I can't see any canines. Either than or the canines are oddly blunted and he's missing a set of bicuspids. the six- and twelve-year molars are normal sized, but the wisdom teeth look like baby teeth. Compare a normal adult upper jaw with wisdom teeth:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/teeth_in_upper_jaw.jpg

It would be interesting to see whether Edward IV exhibited a similar pattern. (Or Richard of Eastwell, who appears to be next on the list for exhumation.)

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I just read, in "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" of course a century before Richard, but it said that teeth were not well cared for, and with the availability of sugar, people had a lot of dental carries. Teeth either fell out, or were extracted. They did chew a lot of fennel seeds, licorice, anise and things of that sort to keep fresh(er) breath. But then, adults commonly had lost several teeth, and the coarseness of bread caused a lot of wear and tear on the molars.
> See page 200, and other pages in the book.

Carol responds:

I don't think that the coarseness of bread would have been a factor for members of the upper class like Richard. We know that he had a high protein diet. And sugar was still a luxury--I doubt that it was used for ordinary meals (as opposed to banquets). (J A-H discusses the topic of Richard's meals in "Last Days of Richard III" but he mentions sugar only in relation to the subtleties served at banquets and "sugar candy" as a not very effective remedy for sore throat.) He says that a last course of something sweet ("dessert" to us Americans, "pudding" to Brits) was very rare. As I said, we don't see any dental caries in Richard's remaining teeth, though there is damage to the enamel of the lower incisors, perhaps caused the that lovely medieval/Renaissance habit of holding meat in the teeth and sawing it with a knife.

I wonder, though, if the relative lack of vegetables might have led to vitamin deficiency in people of Richard's class and, if so, how it affected not only their teeth but their health in general. They did eat fruit, such as medlars (pears) or strawberries, a luxury that only the upper classes could afford. Similarly, a form of white flour (not the "refined flour" we have today that strips away the nutrients) had been available to the upper classes since Egyptian times. Richard's bread would have been of this type, not the rough bread eaten by peasants, which at times even contained acorn flour.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets

> They did eat fruit, such as medlars (pears)

That's not what medlars are. Medlars are weird things that look a bit like
a small, brown persimmon, and are eaten (or cooked as jam) after they've
started to go rotten. They're in the Rosaceae family so I suppose the fruit
is really a sort of enormous rose-hip, about an inch across.

> Similarly, a form of white flour (not the "refined flour" we have today
> that strips away the nutrients) had been available to the upper classes
> since Egyptian times. Richard's bread would have been of this type, not
> the rough bread eaten by peasants, which at times even contained acorn
> flour.

Certainly by the Victorian era white flour was often adulterated with some
very nasty bleaching agents - chalk wasn't the half of it.

Do you think there will be a study on Richard's teeth? I'm very curious. I have a theory, possibly incorrect (!) that the front tooth loss occurred when he took those horrible blows to the head. Surely his upper and lower teeth must have come together in a terrible crush. But I'm no dentist...

The historical novels always talk about demain bread being in his diet. I've always assumed this was a refined, white bread. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > I just read, in "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" of course a century before Richard, but it said that teeth were not well cared for, and with the availability of sugar, people had a lot of dental carries. Teeth either fell out, or were extracted. They did chew a lot of fennel seeds, licorice, anise and things of that sort to keep fresh(er) breath. But then, adults commonly had lost several teeth, and the coarseness of bread caused a lot of wear and tear on the molars.
> > See page 200, and other pages in the book.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I don't think that the coarseness of bread would have been a factor for members of the upper class like Richard. We know that he had a high protein diet. And sugar was still a luxury--I doubt that it was used for ordinary meals (as opposed to banquets). (J A-H discusses the topic of Richard's meals in "Last Days of Richard III" but he mentions sugar only in relation to the subtleties served at banquets and "sugar candy" as a not very effective remedy for sore throat.) He says that a last course of something sweet ("dessert" to us Americans, "pudding" to Brits) was very rare. As I said, we don't see any dental caries in Richard's remaining teeth, though there is damage to the enamel of the lower incisors, perhaps caused the that lovely medieval/Renaissance habit of holding meat in the teeth and sawing it with a knife.
>
> I wonder, though, if the relative lack of vegetables might have led to vitamin deficiency in people of Richard's class and, if so, how it affected not only their teeth but their health in general. They did eat fruit, such as medlars (pears) or strawberries, a luxury that only the upper classes could afford. Similarly, a form of white flour (not the "refined flour" we have today that strips away the nutrients) had been available to the upper classes since Egyptian times. Richard's bread would have been of this type, not the rough bread eaten by peasants, which at times even contained acorn flour.
>
> Carol
>

Maire wrote:

> The historical novels always talk about demain bread being in his diet. I've always assumed this was a refined, white bread. Maire.

Carol responds:

I think you're right. Also, evidently, demesne bread is what Chaucer's prioress fed her (pampered) dogs. A website on bread baking says:

"One of the main components of the European diet is bread. One of the most surprising things I encountered when I first started looking at period recipes was the lack of recipes for bread. In fact, this belief is so widespread that Black has this to say:

"We have no recipes for medieval breads, but we know their names and uses as well as Chaucer's miller did. The finest, whitest wheat flour, boulted several times, made bread called wastel or paynedemain (demesne bread). This is what the prioress fed to her dogs. The only finer flour was the wheaten type used for the light pastries called simnels and cracknels, or wafers (the sacramental Host consisted of these delicate white wafers)."

http://www.aeans.org/artisans/fieldPages/breadBaking.htm

Carol

Interesting. The communion host of my childhood was a very delicate white wafer. Does anybody know what a sweet wafer is? An early biscuit? Maire.
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Maire wrote:
>
> > The historical novels always talk about demain bread being in his diet. I've always assumed this was a refined, white bread. Maire.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I think you're right. Also, evidently, demesne bread is what Chaucer's prioress fed her (pampered) dogs. A website on bread baking says:
>
> "One of the main components of the European diet is bread. One of the most surprising things I encountered when I first started looking at period recipes was the lack of recipes for bread. In fact, this belief is so widespread that Black has this to say:
>
> "We have no recipes for medieval breads, but we know their names and uses as well as Chaucer's miller did. The finest, whitest wheat flour, boulted several times, made bread called wastel or paynedemain (demesne bread). This is what the prioress fed to her dogs. The only finer flour was the wheaten type used for the light pastries called simnels and cracknels, or wafers (the sacramental Host consisted of these delicate white wafers)."
>
> http://www.aeans.org/artisans/fieldPages/breadBaking.htm
>
> Carol
>

What would we do without our little book, Pamela? I think it's a gem.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:45
Subject: Re: steel corsets

I just read, in "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" of course a century before Richard, but it said that teeth were not well cared for, and with the availability of sugar, people had a lot of dental carries. Teeth either fell out, or were extracted. They did chew a lot of fennel seeds, licorice, anise and things of that sort to keep fresh(er) breath. But then, adults commonly had lost several teeth, and the coarseness of bread caused a lot of wear and tear on the molars.
See page 200, and other pages in the book.


On Mar 11, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Carol earlier:

> > The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury;

Claire responded:
> Or been lost in life, but recently. Anybody know how long it takes for the holes to heal over? Leicester Uni's website is confusing as it shows a photo' of Richard's skull (complete with weirdly tiny wisdom teeth, except one is missing) with a caption saying that some of the missing teeth were lost in life and some fell out in the grave, and then a body-text at the side which says that *all* the missing teeth were lost in life. [snip]

Carol again:

The caption is almost certainly correct. I don't know how long it takes for the sockets (couldn't think of the correct term earlier) but I would guess about the same length of time that it takes to heal a broken bone. But here's an excerpt from an article about a forensic dentist whose job involves fitting missing teeth into their sockets in a human skull: "Some of the sockets are blunted and filled in, signs that the teeth were lost or extracted well before death. But others are empty and rimmed by clean, jagged bone, signs that the teeth fell out after death." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-25/news/1991084138_1_teeth-levy-dentist

It would be impossible to fit teeth into the healed part of Richard's jaw (clearly those teeth were lost during life but just when is probably impossible to determine), but easy to fit the missing incisor, wisdom tooth, and molar.

Like you, I noticed the oddly tiny wisdom teeth. I wonder how common that was for the era? These days, they're usually either impacted or congenitally missing.) Also, he seems to have no canine teeth. It looks to me as if he had the normal number of incisors, bicuspids. and molars (ignoring those that have fallen out), but I can't see any canines. Either than or the canines are oddly blunted and he's missing a set of bicuspids. the six- and twelve-year molars are normal sized, but the wisdom teeth look like baby teeth. Compare a normal adult upper jaw with wisdom teeth:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/teeth_in_upper_jaw.jpg

It would be interesting to see whether Edward IV exhibited a similar pattern. (Or Richard of Eastwell, who appears to be next on the list for exhumation.)

Carol









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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Oh, I do too. And I would imagine that things did not happen as quickly as they do now. I do think this is a gem, and at the very least, it puts you in another world of time, and let's you adjust your thinking by imagining what it was like -then.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:25 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



What would we do without our little book, Pamela? I think it's a gem.

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 17:45
Subject: Re: steel corsets

I just read, in "The Time Traveler's Guide to Medieval England" of course a century before Richard, but it said that teeth were not well cared for, and with the availability of sugar, people had a lot of dental carries. Teeth either fell out, or were extracted. They did chew a lot of fennel seeds, licorice, anise and things of that sort to keep fresh(er) breath. But then, adults commonly had lost several teeth, and the coarseness of bread caused a lot of wear and tear on the molars.
See page 200, and other pages in the book.

On Mar 11, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com><mailto:justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>> wrote:

Carol earlier:

> > The three for which we can see the root holes must have fallen out in the grave or been knocked out at Bosworth, maybe as a humiliation injury;

Claire responded:
> Or been lost in life, but recently. Anybody know how long it takes for the holes to heal over? Leicester Uni's website is confusing as it shows a photo' of Richard's skull (complete with weirdly tiny wisdom teeth, except one is missing) with a caption saying that some of the missing teeth were lost in life and some fell out in the grave, and then a body-text at the side which says that *all* the missing teeth were lost in life. [snip]

Carol again:

The caption is almost certainly correct. I don't know how long it takes for the sockets (couldn't think of the correct term earlier) but I would guess about the same length of time that it takes to heal a broken bone. But here's an excerpt from an article about a forensic dentist whose job involves fitting missing teeth into their sockets in a human skull: "Some of the sockets are blunted and filled in, signs that the teeth were lost or extracted well before death. But others are empty and rimmed by clean, jagged bone, signs that the teeth fell out after death." http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-25/news/1991084138_1_teeth-levy-dentist

It would be impossible to fit teeth into the healed part of Richard's jaw (clearly those teeth were lost during life but just when is probably impossible to determine), but easy to fit the missing incisor, wisdom tooth, and molar.

Like you, I noticed the oddly tiny wisdom teeth. I wonder how common that was for the era? These days, they're usually either impacted or congenitally missing.) Also, he seems to have no canine teeth. It looks to me as if he had the normal number of incisors, bicuspids. and molars (ignoring those that have fallen out), but I can't see any canines. Either than or the canines are oddly blunted and he's missing a set of bicuspids. the six- and twelve-year molars are normal sized, but the wisdom teeth look like baby teeth. Compare a normal adult upper jaw with wisdom teeth:

http://www.daviddarling.info/images/teeth_in_upper_jaw.jpg

It would be interesting to see whether Edward IV exhibited a similar pattern. (Or Richard of Eastwell, who appears to be next on the list for exhumation.)

Carol



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets

> The caption is almost certainly correct. I don't know how long it takes
> for the sockets (couldn't think of the correct term earlier) but I would
> guess about the same length of time that it takes to heal a broken bone.
> But here's an excerpt from an article about a forensic dentist whose job
> involves fitting missing teeth into their sockets in a human skull: "Some
> of the sockets are blunted and filled in, signs that the teeth were lost
> or extracted well before death.

Not very helpful, is it - we don't know if "well before" means weeks,
months, years....

> It would be impossible to fit teeth into the healed part of Richard's jaw
> (clearly those teeth were lost during life but just when is probably
> impossible to determine), but easy to fit the missing incisor, wisdom
> tooth, and molar.

So at least we can say that if they were lost in life it was probably less
than, say, six months before he died (less than a point which could be
considered "well before").

If they fell out in the grave it seems odd they weren't found, except in the
case of the tiny wisdom tooth which is just so small it maybe wouldn't
register to the eye as tooth-shaped. If they were lost at or after death,
then, they were probably knocked out in the battle. Another possibility is
that those teeth were broken in life, and the remains fell out after death
because they didn't have any bulk to hold them against neighbouring teeth
(just as the tiny wisdom tooth had no bulk), and they weren't identified in
the grave because they were only fragments, not whole teeth.

> Like you, I noticed the oddly tiny wisdom teeth. I wonder how common that
> was for the era? These days, they're usually either impacted or
> congenitally missing.)

I used to have a full set, full-sized but set back a bit so that the
surfaces were below those of the regular molars. But a couple of years ago
one of them imploded and had to be pulled out :(

> Also, he seems to have no canine teeth. It looks to me as if he had the
normal number of incisors, bicuspids. and molars (ignoring those that have
fallen out), but I can't see any canines.

I think he *has* canines, they're just worn flat by the way they ate their
meat, which resulted in an edge to edge bite. And some people do naturally
have rather blunt canines to start with.

> Either than or the canines are oddly blunted and he's missing a set of
> bicuspids.

Not a *set*, at least not a set at the top (I haven't seen a good top view
of his lower jaw): he's actually only missing the second premolar on the
right side. On the left he has a full set of eight teeth.

> the six- and twelve-year molars are normal sized, but the wisdom teeth
> look like baby teeth.

Yes, although seen from the side they seem to be full-length, so they are
peg-like rather than pearl-like as I first thought.

> It would be interesting to see whether Edward IV exhibited a similar
pattern. (Or Richard of Eastwell, who appears to be next on the list for
exhumation.)

I hate to say it, but isn't a missing premolar what both Ann Mowbray and one
of the skulls in the urn had? If this missing tooth is "a York thing" that
slightly increases the likelihood of the bones being those of the missing
boys - although it remains true that this was a common odditty in Roman
London and they are probably Roman.

  For professional reasons I cannot refer to LIVING patients who have passed through my hands, 
However I think you get the IDEA. 

 Regarding the 'Princes'  I DO suspect still that Richard played a 'Part' at least in their disappearance, However he may well have been forced into some 'Decisive Military Acts' by his late brothers family, the Woodvilles & others, [Including Hastings.] 

  Regarding 'Pain & Disability' surely a 'Paralympian' Gold Medallist can, potentially at least, have achieved more than a 'Fully Fit' Olympian. Was Douglas Bader, a greater hero of the 'Battle of Britain', because he was without his legs?.

  Richard's 'Disability' makes his achievements greater, not lesser.

   Sometimes people in 'Ordinary Situations' cannot understand those faced with 'Extraordinary Situations'. 
In my former 'Professional Life' I had, on occasion, to take decisions for the 'Common Weal' [Common Good] 
this is often hard for others not/never in these situations to understand, Of course once 'Control is Re-established' then a more 'Liberal View' can AGAIN be taken. 

Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'

  Back to Richard, it seems further possible that he may have held E. Woodville Responsible for Clarence's death & aspects of the Rift with his [Honorary Father, Warwick & his demise] 

  Whilst we [In our 'Relatively' Safe Century] cannot go all the way to understanding, we can perhaps see, 
in situations such as the Iranian Embassy Siege, what dilemmas faced the S.A.S. Troopers involved. 
A close relative of mine [Shall we say] 'Understands this 'First Hand'.

  Incidentally, 'Professionals in Forensic Psychiatry/Psychology/Nursing often find it EASIER to hold Sympathy/Empathy with a Psychotic offender than with a Psychopathic Offender [The latter knows what he is doing, the former will NOT DO.]

Kind Regards,

 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 13:17
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>Thanks Arthur. So do you see any good in him, you see I would find it quite hard to admire someone who was the equivalent of a Moors Murderer, which is what you seem to be hinting at? In fact I'd find it quite hard to belong to a Society named after such a killer? By the way I have no problem with the Lancastrian thing, through history people have supported different factions. Some win, some lose. It's just the psychotic child murderer thing I find very hard to square and to be honest I did think you were hinting at that before  - or are you linking pain with potential killing?  Like you though, I certainly share the interest in his camp followers; if by that you mean the men who worked round him? I don't mean his sort of cult followers. Thanks though, for all this and a million apologies if I've misunderstood you, which is quite likely.  Regards  H
> 
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 11:15
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> 
>
>  Perhaps I start by getting peoples backs up [No pun intended] by my E-Mail Address: 'Lancastrian' 
>[I was born in Lancashire & Live there, hence the address!! No other reason.]
>
>  When I see Richard [Like the rest of us?] As a 'Flawed Man', Painted in a corner by events, 
>The death of his father [& an older, but young brother] at Wakefield, Clarence,[Was it Edward or the Woodvilles?] Warwick, [My own father died in War] 
>I both admire & have mixed feelings [If he killed the 'Princes'] Perhaps 'Uniquely' I have worked with Spinal Injuries Professionally & in the latter years as a Senior 'Forensic Psychiatric Nurse Manager' some of my work involved what used to be called 'Capital Cases', in some cases those who had killed children & in one of these in which the bodies had NOT all been found.
>
>  Perhaps you can then guess the 'Genesis' of my interest?
> 
>  I have read & travelled extensively when I was younger & fitter, I was once very interested in local history [Lord Stanley/ Thomas, 1st Earl of Derby is buried in nearby Ormskirk. 
>
>As well as being [Thankfully only in old age] a bit disabled by back & knee problems & also having a degree of professional knowledge of Materia-Medica, I am also interested in the 'Camp Followers' of men such as Richard, [Both Ancient &  Modern]
>
>  Richard remains, to any age, a 'Conundrum', one that has recently emerged into our spotlight, 
>hence my email box containing 999+ Emails!!
>
>Finally, I really AM grateful for the help & Scholarship of some contributors shown, with patience, to me. 
>If some of my stuff is, on occasion, a 'Bit Garbled,' Two hours sleep a night & enough tablets to 'Sink the Hesperus'!! 
>
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>>To: ">
>>Sent: Monday, 11 March 2013, 10:12
>>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>>
>>
>> 
>>Not a problem Arthur!
>> 
>>You ask us a lot and I certainly had a go at answering your question about whether I would still support Richard if (against my beliefs) he was found to have had a hand in the supposed murder of his nephews. I recall McJohn gave the most eloquent answer. I just wondered where you stand on this? What is the particular attraction of Richard to you; because he could have been 'disabled', because he was a king for the 'common man', because he was ahead of his time? And how do you feel about the nephew issue? I'm really a bit unsure from some of your questions and answers; but that could be just me.
>> 
>>BTW I think the best thing that this forum has done for me (as well as the good company) is that it has made me sit down and sort out in my own head what I really believe. I found that a really hard discipline, despite many years of interest in the subject.  H.
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>>To:
>>Sent: Sunday, 10 March 2013, 16:04
>>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>>
>> 
>>
>>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> That might indeed be what the Church wished to achieve; that is if one sees the Catholic Church as a vehicle for controlling women, which some now do and some then did. But that is not the subject for this forum. Can I refer you to Ian Mortimer's excellent Time Travellers Guide, where I think you'll find the medieval attitude to sex is one of satiating male and female lust  as encouraged by the advice of the 3rd century medic Galen. It worries me when you say things like 'medieval people would have acted in less controlled ways'. Why should they be different to those who came before and after? I sometimes get the feeling that you think all this is as distant as Ancient Egypt, rather than just round the corner out of sight. H 
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Apologies - I was joking. That was my (badly expressed) point, really: just human beings, the lot of them.
>>
>>(What I actually (badly, jokingly) said was that 'even mediaeval people would have acted in less than controlled ways sometimes' - as in, no matter what the Church said. And I wasn't talking about women's sexual pleasure so much as the question of men doing all the work in bed.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of
> Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'

And thus breaking his own word. People forget that Cromwell was only the
second in command of the Parliamentarian army - the commander was Thomas
Fairfax. The Parliamentarian leaders all signed a solemn promise called the
self-denying ordinance, swearing that they would not personally seek power.
Fairfax kept his word, and is nearly forgotten: Cromwell broke his and so
stole Fairfax's fame.

He was a bit of a hypocrite, too, since he promoted the Puritan cause and
banned Christmas etc., yet there's a contemporary account of him getting
steaming drunk at his daughter's wedding party, throwing cakes at the female
guests, smearing cakes on all the stools and pulling his new son in law's
wig off and sitting on it.

Does being Puritan mean you cannot have fun? Is having fun at your daughter's wedding being a hypocrite?
Besides it was not Cromwell that banned Christmas. It was a Parliamentary committee at a time that Parliament was under the control of Pym. Cromwell was not part of that committee either.
 
Helen


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:58 PM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


 

From: Arthurian
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: steel corsets

> Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of
> Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'

And thus breaking his own word. People forget that Cromwell was only the
second in command of the Parliamentarian army - the commander was Thomas
Fairfax. The Parliamentarian leaders all signed a solemn promise called the
self-denying ordinance, swearing that they would not personally seek power.
Fairfax kept his word, and is nearly forgotten: Cromwell broke his and so
stole Fairfax's fame.

He was a bit of a hypocrite, too, since he promoted the Puritan cause and
banned Christmas etc., yet there's a contemporary account of him getting
steaming drunk at his daughter's wedding party, throwing cakes at the female
guests, smearing cakes on all the stools and pulling his new son in law's
wig off and sitting on it.

From: Helen Rowe
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: steel corsets


> Does being Puritan mean you cannot have fun?

Many Puritans at the time believed so, yes. Many in Scotland still do, in
fact.

> Is having fun at your daughter's wedding being a hypocrite?

If you prevent other people from partying, yes.

> Besides it was not Cromwell that banned Christmas. It was a Parliamentary
> committee at a time that Parliament was under the control of Pym. Cromwell
> was not part of that committee either.

OK.

Fairfax is not entirely forgotten amongst us enthusiasts of Thoroughbred
history - he's enshrined as the owner of Fairfax's Morocco Barb. And we
debate whether this Barb was the Barb, or maybe the Turk, returned to the
Duke of Buckingham by Royal Warrant after the Restoration.

A J

On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 9:58 PM, Claire M Jordan
<whitehound@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> From: Arthurian
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:37 AM
>
> Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
> > Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of
> > Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'
>
> And thus breaking his own word. People forget that Cromwell was only the
> second in command of the Parliamentarian army - the commander was Thomas
> Fairfax. The Parliamentarian leaders all signed a solemn promise called
> the
> self-denying ordinance, swearing that they would not personally seek
> power.
> Fairfax kept his word, and is nearly forgotten: Cromwell broke his and so
> stole Fairfax's fame.
>
> He was a bit of a hypocrite, too, since he promoted the Puritan cause and
> banned Christmas etc., yet there's a contemporary account of him getting
> steaming drunk at his daughter's wedding party, throwing cakes at the
> female
> guests, smearing cakes on all the stools and pulling his new son in law's
> wig off and sitting on it.
>
>
>

  I did NOT say that Old Noll was Always Right, Indeed perhaps he is the more human for All That!!

   In many ways although Fairfax, 'Black Tom' kept his word as regards the ordinance, his effect on history was reduced as a result.
If Cromwell had followed this line the 'Government' would 'Not Have Progressed' as it did, nor would he have had his statue outside the Palace of Westminster. [Having said that why Richard the Lionheart got there instead of Henry II is beyond me.
   
  Very Few Heroes are Totally Heroic, Richard III Amongst them.

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 2:58
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:37 AM
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>> Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of
>> Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'
>
>And thus breaking his own word. People forget that Cromwell was only the
>second in command of the Parliamentarian army - the commander was Thomas
>Fairfax. The Parliamentarian leaders all signed a solemn promise called the
>self-denying ordinance, swearing that they would not personally seek power.
>Fairfax kept his word, and is nearly forgotten: Cromwell broke his and so
>stole Fairfax's fame.
>
>He was a bit of a hypocrite, too, since he promoted the Puritan cause and
>banned Christmas etc., yet there's a contemporary account of him getting
>steaming drunk at his daughter's wedding party, throwing cakes at the female
>guests, smearing cakes on all the stools and pulling his new son in law's
>wig off and sitting on it.
>
>
>
>
>

I am now worried that we need to 'Bury One person' before we stir up another.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 3:04
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>Does being Puritan mean you cannot have fun? Is having fun at your daughter's wedding being a hypocrite?
>Besides it was not Cromwell that banned Christmas. It was a Parliamentary committee at a time that Parliament was under the control of Pym. Cromwell was not part of that committee either.
> 
>Helen
>
>
>________________________________
>From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013 1:58 PM
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>
> 
>
>From: Arthurian
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 1:37 AM
>Subject: Re: steel corsets
>
>> Another 'Hero' of mine is Oliver Cromwell, forced to take the reins of
>> Government from the 'Rump' for the 'Common Weal'
>
>And thus breaking his own word. People forget that Cromwell was only the
>second in command of the Parliamentarian army - the commander was Thomas
>Fairfax. The Parliamentarian leaders all signed a solemn promise called the
>self-denying ordinance, swearing that they would not personally seek power.
>Fairfax kept his word, and is nearly forgotten: Cromwell broke his and so
>stole Fairfax's fame.
>
>He was a bit of a hypocrite, too, since he promoted the Puritan cause and
>banned Christmas etc., yet there's a contemporary account of him getting
>steaming drunk at his daughter's wedding party, throwing cakes at the female
>guests, smearing cakes on all the stools and pulling his new son in law's
>wig off and sitting on it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Picking up this thread again, now I have the information I need.....

I did ask Bob Woosnam-Savage at his lecture yesterday (which was on Richard's cause of death and wounds) about this armour at Warwick made for a boy with scoliosis. He had not heard this before and was excited and said he'd follow this up. I think he's finishing a book about Bosworth or Richard's injuries specifically.

[incidentally, as soon as I saw him I realized I'd met Bob W-S before - as we are in *broadly* similar lines of work we are in the same union and were both part of a group who traveled to London together two years ago for a TUC anti-cuts rally. Small world....]

--- On Mon, 11/3/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>

> If these armor(s?) were custom made -
> the larger suit appears to have a
> right lower leg that is smaller in circumference than the
> left; it might
> also be interesting to ask about that.
>
> A J
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > I wondered about this teenage armour too when I saw the
> post. I am going
> > to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this month
> and will see if I
> > can accost the curator and ask him his view. If not,
> I'll email him.
> >
> >
> > --- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a suit
> of armor made for a
> > teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said that
> it was made for a
> > boy with scoliosis (Richard)?
> >
> > I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in the
> middle of this photo
> > could have belonged to Richard:
> >
> > http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>     [email protected]
>
>

I should add, just because it might amuse some people here, that Bob W-S made quite a few jokes about Jo Appleby's pick-axe happy style.....and commented how mortified she is by it being captured on film.

He also said that in his view Richard's scoliosis would not have been noticeable to anyone who had not seen him naked - but obviously this isn't the view of a medic and he said that there was still research on-going into how it would have affected his movement and so forth.

--- On Thu, 28/3/13, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

> From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis support group, Richard, and armor (Was: steel corsets)
> To:
> Date: Thursday, 28 March, 2013, 18:34
> Picking up this thread again, now I
> have the information I need.....
>
> I did ask Bob Woosnam-Savage at his lecture yesterday (which
> was on Richard's cause of death and wounds) about this
> armour at Warwick made for a boy with scoliosis. He had not
> heard this before and was excited and said he'd follow this
> up. I think he's finishing a book about Bosworth or
> Richard's injuries specifically.
>
> [incidentally, as soon as I saw him I realized I'd met Bob
> W-S before - as we are in *broadly* similar lines of work we
> are in the same union and were both part of a group who
> traveled to London together two years ago for a TUC
> anti-cuts rally. Small world....]
>
> --- On Mon, 11/3/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>
> > If these armor(s?) were custom made -
> > the larger suit appears to have a
> > right lower leg that is smaller in circumference than
> the
> > left; it might
> > also be interesting to ask about that.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I wondered about this teenage armour too when I
> saw the
> > post. I am going
> > > to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this
> month
> > and will see if I
> > > can accost the curator and ask him his view. If
> not,
> > I'll email him.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a
> suit
> > of armor made for a
> > > teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said
> that
> > it was made for a
> > > boy with scoliosis (Richard)?
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in
> the
> > middle of this photo
> > > could have belonged to Richard:
> > >
> > > http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
>

Thank you so very much!!!



________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 28 March 2013, 19:45
Subject: Re: Scoliosis support group, Richard, and armor (Was: steel corsets)

 

I should add, just because it might amuse some people here, that Bob W-S made quite a few jokes about Jo Appleby's pick-axe happy style.....and commented how mortified she is by it being captured on film.

He also said that in his view Richard's scoliosis would not have been noticeable to anyone who had not seen him naked - but obviously this isn't the view of a medic and he said that there was still research on-going into how it would have affected his movement and so forth.

--- On Thu, 28/3/13, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

> From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> Subject: Re: Scoliosis support group, Richard, and armor (Was: steel corsets)
> To:
> Date: Thursday, 28 March, 2013, 18:34
> Picking up this thread again, now I
> have the information I need.....
>
> I did ask Bob Woosnam-Savage at his lecture yesterday (which
> was on Richard's cause of death and wounds) about this
> armour at Warwick made for a boy with scoliosis. He had not
> heard this before and was excited and said he'd follow this
> up. I think he's finishing a book about Bosworth or
> Richard's injuries specifically.
>
> [incidentally, as soon as I saw him I realized I'd met Bob
> W-S before - as we are in *broadly* similar lines of work we
> are in the same union and were both part of a group who
> traveled to London together two years ago for a TUC
> anti-cuts rally. Small world....]
>
> --- On Mon, 11/3/13, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>
> > If these armor(s?) were custom made -
> > the larger suit appears to have a
> > right lower leg that is smaller in circumference than
> the
> > left; it might
> > also be interesting to ask about that.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > I wondered about this teenage armour too when I
> saw the
> > post. I am going
> > > to the lecture at the Royal Armouries later this
> month
> > and will see if I
> > > can accost the curator and ask him his view. If
> not,
> > I'll email him.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Sun, 10/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Meanwhile, I noticed that two posters mentioned a
> suit
> > of armor made for a
> > > teenage boy on display at Warwick Castle. One said
> that
> > it was made for a
> > > boy with scoliosis (Richard)?
> > >
> > > I was wondering if the smaller suit of armor in
> the
> > middle of this photo
> > > could have belonged to Richard:
> > >
> > > http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/song/gallery/warwick_castle/
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >     [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
>