Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 19:08:19
Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
Eileen
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
Eileen
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 20:47:24
But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 21:30:20
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 21:34:23
I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 22:00:59
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychology of a Battle:
Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does
> somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at
> Agincourt.
There's an account of the battle which claims Richard took a lot of treasure
with him to Bosworth (can't remember the name - chap on the continent - the
one who records Salazar's supposed part in the battle). Is it possible that
he took a couple of chests of valuables with him because he feared a repeat
of the incident where the Woodvilles looted the Treasury - or took the crown
with him in case one of Henry's supporters nicked it while he was out of
London, and Henry used it to stage a rival coronation?
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Psychology of a Battle:
Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does
> somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at
> Agincourt.
There's an account of the battle which claims Richard took a lot of treasure
with him to Bosworth (can't remember the name - chap on the continent - the
one who records Salazar's supposed part in the battle). Is it possible that
he took a couple of chests of valuables with him because he feared a repeat
of the incident where the Woodvilles looted the Treasury - or took the crown
with him in case one of Henry's supporters nicked it while he was out of
London, and Henry used it to stage a rival coronation?
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-21 22:23:06
Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 09:37:07
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 10:18:42
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 10:36:01
Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
won't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
really hard to change his mind!:-)
Paul
On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
>> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>>>
>>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
>>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
>>>> Eileen
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
won't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
really hard to change his mind!:-)
Paul
On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
>> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>>
>>
>> Â
>>
>> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
>>>
>>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
>>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
>>>> Eileen
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 10:41:09
Hi,
I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we imagine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the king. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in preparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other things.
As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage his soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Marion Z
P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my Brief reply. I try to follow up.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we imagine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the king. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in preparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other things.
As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage his soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Marion Z
P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my Brief reply. I try to follow up.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 10:45:06
Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 14:11:26
That whole crown business -- Last I'd heard, Richard wore a very simple crown at Bosworth -- it was little more than a gold circlet and was meant to be worn outside of the helmet. It was his equivalent of the insignia on a general's helmet -- a commonsense way of letting the troops know who was under that helm, not some kind of ego reinforcement.
Tamara
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Â
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Digest Number 4247
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
From: Hilary Jones
2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Hilary Jones
b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: marionziemke
e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Hilary Jones
3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
From: Hilary Jones
4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: Hilary Jones
b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: Dorothea Preis
c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: hjnatdat
5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
From: hjnatdat
essages
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
hop in Berkhamstead?'
________________________________
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
o:
ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
iscovered in America
er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
--
- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
*Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
essages in this topic (2)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Â
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
essages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
riests with him! :-)
ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
udor's army.
actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
rench invasion.
aul
n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
vailable....?
Eileen
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-
ichard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
eally hard to change his mind!:-)
aul
On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
it with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>>
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>>
>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
>>> Eileen
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-
ichard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
Hi,
I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
hings.
As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Marion Z
P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
rief reply. I try to follow up.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
o:
ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
riests with him! :-)
ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
udor's army.
actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
rench invasion.
aul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
vailable....?
Eileen
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
ichard Liveth Yet!
essages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
ills next.
he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
ree it could be.
've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
tillington's escapades?)
TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
spect of astrology.
arie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
tapletons etc. If you google it you can read it online.
Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
(Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
Â
Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
uoted from Hicks.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
uitclaim.ÃÂ ÃÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> ÃÂ
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
umble
> > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> >
> > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> >
> > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
r
> > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > with black virgins.]
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
essages in this topic (39)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
________________________________
From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
J.A.F.
homson, The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?', The
ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
heers,
Dorothea
________________________________
rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
nd suspected Lollard.
________________________________
rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Sorry, who is the second?
arie
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
essages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
Cheers, Dorothea
_______________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
________________________________
rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
J.A.F.
homson, The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?', The
ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
heers,
Dorothea
________________________________
rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
nd suspected Lollard.
________________________________
rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Sorry, who is the second?
arie
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
essages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
Oh what a tangled web!:)
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,, still
ooking
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
Messages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
Has just arrived.
A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
dea.
Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
n the book at all!)
essages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahoo! Groups Links
Digest Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Â
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
-----Original Message-----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Digest Number 4247
There are 11 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
From: Hilary Jones
2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Hilary Jones
b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: marionziemke
e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
From: Hilary Jones
3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
From: Hilary Jones
4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: Hilary Jones
b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: Dorothea Preis
c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
From: hjnatdat
5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
From: hjnatdat
essages
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
hop in Berkhamstead?'
________________________________
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
o:
ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
iscovered in America
er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
--
- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
*Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
essages in this topic (2)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Â
I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>
> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>
> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>
> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
>
essages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
riests with him! :-)
ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
udor's army.
actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
rench invasion.
aul
n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
vailable....?
Eileen
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-
ichard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
eally hard to change his mind!:-)
aul
On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
y far...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
it with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
ext coronation....
>>
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
oronation chair along as well?
>>
>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
attlefield.
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
>>> Eileen
>>>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
-
ichard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
Hi,
I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
hings.
As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Marion Z
P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
rief reply. I try to follow up.
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
rote:
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
priests with him! :-)
With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
Tudor's army.
I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
French invasion.
Paul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
ven available....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Messages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
o:
ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
ichael K Jones.
Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
riests with him! :-)
ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
udor's army.
actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
rench invasion.
aul
On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
vailable....?
Eileen
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
ichard Liveth Yet!
essages in this topic (11)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
ills next.
he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
ree it could be.
've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
tillington's escapades?)
TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
spect of astrology.
arie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@...> wrote:
Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
tapletons etc. If you google it you can read it online.
Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
(Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
Â
Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
uoted from Hicks.
Marie
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
uitclaim.ÃÂ ÃÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> ÃÂ
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> >
> > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
umble
> > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> >
> > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> >
> > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
r
> > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > with black virgins.]
> >
>
> As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
essages in this topic (39)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
________________________________
From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
J.A.F.
homson, The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?', The
ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
heers,
Dorothea
________________________________
rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
nd suspected Lollard.
________________________________
rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Sorry, who is the second?
arie
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
essages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
Cheers, Dorothea
_______________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
________________________________
rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
J.A.F.
homson, The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?', The
ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
heers,
Dorothea
________________________________
rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
o: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
nd suspected Lollard.
________________________________
rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
o:
ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Sorry, who is the second?
arie
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
essages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
Oh what a tangled web!:)
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
rote:
And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,, still
ooking
________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
oodville?
Â
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
whitehound@> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > Woodville?
>
>
> > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> Marie
>
> Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> Eboracum is York.
>
Marie replies:
Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
"About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
et this description of E 163/29/11:-
"Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
Reference:E 163/29/11"
Two interesting things:
1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
his document!
I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
ifference to his career, for instance.
Marie
Messages in this topic (16)
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
Has just arrived.
A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
dea.
Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
n the book at all!)
essages in this topic (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ahoo! Groups Links
Digest Email | Traditional
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 18:46:48
Paul....I read about the lack of breakfast and mass a very long time ago...more than once. I cannot recall where. I think I may have believed it at the time...being slightly green on Ricardian matters...now I question more. This is why I questioned the crown wearing story. On having a check up I find that Jones found this in the CC. So there you go...I probably should eat my words. Yes...this was not the actual crown that was worn by Richard in the battle. I find it strange that nothing was ever said about St Edward's crown being amongst the loot. Weasle was crowned with the smaller crown worn on Richard's helmet found according to legend in the hawthorn bush. This is why I do have doubts...Can you imagine how thrilled Weasle would have been if they had brought him the St Edward's crown after the battle?. He must have thought he had died and gone to Heaven....Doh...Eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 18:52:15
To clarify...I asked whether anyone had heard of the St Edward's crown being worn by Richard prior to wearing the smaller one for the battle.....eileen
--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
>
> That whole crown business -- Last I'd heard, Richard wore a very simple crown at Bosworth -- it was little more than a gold circlet and was meant to be worn outside of the helmet. It was his equivalent of the insignia on a general's helmet -- a commonsense way of letting the troops know who was under that helm, not some kind of ego reinforcement.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
> Subject: Digest Number 4247
>
>
> There are 11 messages in this issue.
> Topics in this digest:
> 1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> From: Hilary Jones
> 2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: marionziemke
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> 3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> From: Hilary Jones
> 4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Dorothea Preis
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: hjnatdat
> 5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> From: hjnatdat
>
> essages
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
> 'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
> hop in Berkhamstead?'
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> o:
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
> ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
> iscovered in America
>
>
>
>
> er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
> our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
> --
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (2)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
>
> ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
>
> n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> eally hard to change his mind!:-)
> aul
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
> ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
> n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
> oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
> hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
> hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
> it with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >>
> >> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
> Hi,
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
> magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
> ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
> reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
> hings.
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
> is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
> Marion Z
> P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
> rief reply. I try to follow up.
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> rote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
> nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
> nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> o:
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> .1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
> I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
> he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
> icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
> Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
> ills next.
> he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
> ree it could be.
> 've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
> would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
> tillington's escapades?)
> TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
> dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
> nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
> ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
> ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
> robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
> Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
> ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
> ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
> is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
> spect of astrology.
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
> n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
> tapletons etc. If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Â
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
> uoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
> uitclaim. ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
> umble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
> r
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
> here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
> s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
> f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
> o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
> hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (39)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
> Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, ‘ The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?’, The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
> If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
> _______________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
> ________________________________
> rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, ‘ The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?’, The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
> I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
> borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
> entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
> ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
> Oh what a tangled web!:)
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,, still
> ooking
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> . Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
> Has just arrived.
> A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
> ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
> ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
> akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
> No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
> On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
> chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
> rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
> ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
> ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
> imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
> appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
> he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
> dea.
> Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
> n the book at all!)
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (1)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ahoo! Groups Links
> Digest Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , khafara@... wrote:
>
>
> That whole crown business -- Last I'd heard, Richard wore a very simple crown at Bosworth -- it was little more than a gold circlet and was meant to be worn outside of the helmet. It was his equivalent of the insignia on a general's helmet -- a commonsense way of letting the troops know who was under that helm, not some kind of ego reinforcement.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
> Subject: Digest Number 4247
>
>
> There are 11 messages in this issue.
> Topics in this digest:
> 1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> From: Hilary Jones
> 2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: marionziemke
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> 3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> From: Hilary Jones
> 4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Dorothea Preis
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: hjnatdat
> 5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> From: hjnatdat
>
> essages
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
> 'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
> hop in Berkhamstead?'
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> o:
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
> ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
> iscovered in America
>
>
>
>
> er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
> our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
> --
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (2)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
>
> ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
>
> n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> eally hard to change his mind!:-)
> aul
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
> ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
> n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
> oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
> hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
> hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
> it with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> > I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >>
> >> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
> Hi,
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
> magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
> ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
> reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
> hings.
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
> is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
> Marion Z
> P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
> rief reply. I try to follow up.
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> rote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
> nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
> nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> o:
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> .1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
> I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
> he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
> icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
> Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
> ills next.
> he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
> ree it could be.
> 've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
> would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
> tillington's escapades?)
> TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
> dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
> nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
> ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
> ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
> robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
> Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
> ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
> ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
> is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
> spect of astrology.
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
> n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
> tapletons etc. If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Â
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
> uoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
> uitclaim. ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
> umble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
> r
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
> here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
> s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
> f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
> o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
> hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (39)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
> Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, ‘ The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?’, The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
> If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
> _______________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
> ________________________________
> rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, ‘ The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?’, The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> o:
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so this could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÂ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
> I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
> borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
> entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
> ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
> Oh what a tangled web!:)
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,, still
> ooking
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (16)
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________________
> . Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
> Has just arrived.
> A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
> ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
> ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
> akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
> No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
> On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
> chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
> rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
> ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
> ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
> imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
> appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
> he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
> dea.
> Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
> n the book at all!)
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (1)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ahoo! Groups Links
> Digest Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 18:55:22
Wearing a crown in battle would seem to be both folly and fearless. It show you where your king is, and should protect.....but it also gives the opposing forces one great big target!
On May 22, 2013, at 12:46 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Paul....I read about the lack of breakfast and mass a very long time ago...more than once. I cannot recall where. I think I may have believed it at the time...being slightly green on Ricardian matters...now I question more. This is why I questioned the crown wearing story. On having a check up I find that Jones found this in the CC. So there you go...I probably should eat my words. Yes...this was not the actual crown that was worn by Richard in the battle. I find it strange that nothing was ever said about St Edward's crown being amongst the loot. Weasle was crowned with the smaller crown worn on Richard's helmet found according to legend in the hawthorn bush. This is why I do have doubts...Can you imagine how thrilled Weasle would have been if they had brought him the St Edward's crown after the battle?. He must have thought he had died and gone to Heaven....Doh...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
On May 22, 2013, at 12:46 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Paul....I read about the lack of breakfast and mass a very long time ago...more than once. I cannot recall where. I think I may have believed it at the time...being slightly green on Ricardian matters...now I question more. This is why I questioned the crown wearing story. On having a check up I find that Jones found this in the CC. So there you go...I probably should eat my words. Yes...this was not the actual crown that was worn by Richard in the battle. I find it strange that nothing was ever said about St Edward's crown being amongst the loot. Weasle was crowned with the smaller crown worn on Richard's helmet found according to legend in the hawthorn bush. This is why I do have doubts...Can you imagine how thrilled Weasle would have been if they had brought him the St Edward's crown after the battle?. He must have thought he had died and gone to Heaven....Doh...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 18:57:49
I wonder why Michael Jones who writes so well about Richard will not budge on this one...? eileen
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> won't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> really hard to change his mind!:-)
> Paul
>
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> >> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >>>
> >>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >>>
> >>> ~Weds
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> >>>> Eileen
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> won't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> really hard to change his mind!:-)
> Paul
>
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> > Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a complete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More and Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come across the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No, Jones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do find it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was actually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse by far...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit with H5 wearing the Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Â
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> >> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> >> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> >>
> >>
> >> Â
> >>
> >> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >>> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St. Edward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in the coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?) when the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the next coronation....
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless coronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the coronation chair along as well?
> >>>
> >>> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at this point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass" legends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the battlefield.
> >>>
> >>> ~Weds
> >>>
> >>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> >>>> Eileen
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 19:10:10
French pikeman trained in the Swiss manner......eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
>
>
> Â
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-22 22:58:33
The St Edwards crown as we know it hails from 1661. Richard's coronation crown would have been smaller and lighter (Tudor commissioned a bigger one - the Imperial Crown). Both were melted down in the 17th century. I buy into Jones's theory. Richard was about to repell a foreign invader a la H5. He would then have switched to his battle coronet. As for being a target that's what kingship was all about. The perfect king (E3, H5) was a conqueror who defended his kingdom.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 18:52
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
To clarify...I asked whether anyone had heard of the St Edward's crown being worn by Richard prior to wearing the smaller one for the battle.....eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, khafara@... wrote:
>
>
> That whole crown business -- Last I'd heard, Richard wore a very simple crown at Bosworth -- it was little more than a gold circlet and was meant to be worn outside of the helmet. It was his equivalent of the insignia on a general's helmet -- a commonsense way of letting the troops know who was under that helm, not some kind of ego reinforcement.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Ã
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
> Subject: Digest Number 4247
>
>
> There are 11 messages in this issue.
> Topics in this digest:
> 1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> From: Hilary Jones
> 2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: marionziemke
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> 3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> From: Hilary Jones
> 4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Dorothea Preis
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: hjnatdat
> 5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> From: hjnatdat
>
> essages
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
> 'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
> hop in Berkhamstead?'
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
> ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
> iscovered in America
>
>
>
>
> er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
> our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
> --
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (2)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Ã
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
>
> ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
>
> n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> eally hard to change his mind!:-)
> aul
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
> ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
> n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
> oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
> hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
> hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
> it with H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >>
> >> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
> Hi,
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
> magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
> ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
> reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
> hings.
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
> is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
> Marion Z
> P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
> rief reply. I try to follow up.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> rote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
> nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
> nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> .1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
> I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
> he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
> icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
> Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
> ills next.
> he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
> ree it could be.
> 've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
> would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
> tillington's escapades?)
> TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
> dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
> nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
> ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
> ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
> robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
> Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
> ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
> ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
> is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
> spect of astrology.
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
> n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
> tapletons etc.Ã If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Ã
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
> uoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
> uitclaim.Ã’â¬aà Òâ¬aÃ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > Ã’â¬aÃ
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
> umble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
> r
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
> here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
> s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
> f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
> o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
> hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (39)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
> Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, â¬Ü The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?â¬", The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so thisà could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÃ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
> If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
> _______________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
> ________________________________
> rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, â¬Ü The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?â¬", The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so thisà could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÃ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
> I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
> borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
> entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
> ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
> Oh what a tangled web!:)
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,,Ã still
> ooking
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> . Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
> Has just arrived.
> A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
> ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
> ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
> akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
> No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
> On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
> chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
> rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
> ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
> ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
> imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
> appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
> he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
> dea.
> Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
> n the book at all!)
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (1)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ahoo! Groups Links
> Digest Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 18:52
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
To clarify...I asked whether anyone had heard of the St Edward's crown being worn by Richard prior to wearing the smaller one for the battle.....eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, khafara@... wrote:
>
>
> That whole crown business -- Last I'd heard, Richard wore a very simple crown at Bosworth -- it was little more than a gold circlet and was meant to be worn outside of the helmet. It was his equivalent of the insignia on a general's helmet -- a commonsense way of letting the troops know who was under that helm, not some kind of ego reinforcement.
>
> Tamara
>
>
>
>
>
> Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Ã
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wed, May 22, 2013 6:36 am
> Subject: Digest Number 4247
>
>
> There are 11 messages in this issue.
> Topics in this digest:
> 1a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> From: Hilary Jones
> 2a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: marionziemke
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> From: Hilary Jones
> 3.1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> From: Hilary Jones
> 4a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Hilary Jones
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: Dorothea Preis
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> From: hjnatdat
> 5. Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> From: hjnatdat
>
> essages
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother Discovered in America
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:34 am ((PDT))
> 'And can you spare me a groat for that nice bolt of cloth I've just seen in a
> hop in Berkhamstead?'
>
> ________________________________
> From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 3:58
> ubject: ARTICLE: "Letter from R3's Mother
> iscovered in America
>
>
>
>
> er the article, this letter isn't "translated" yet. What will it say? "Say
> our prayers, be a good King, bundle up and don't catch cold"?
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Letter-Richard-III-s-mother-discovered-America/story-19044222-detail/story.html
> --
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (2)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:37 am ((PDT))
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who says
> e's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> ilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book on
> B. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the boys
> e still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who thinks
> t probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as they
> re fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer and
> eavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow fit
> ith H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
> Ã
>
> I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >
> > Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >
> > I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > > Eileen
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:18 am ((PDT))
>
> ell Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
>
> n 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:36 am ((PDT))
> Yes, met him a few times. A great speaker, and nice guy, even if he
> on't give up on thinking Richard did in his nephews! Oh and I tried
> eally hard to change his mind!:-)
> aul
> On 22/05/2013 09:37, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yep, I particularly like him on the influence of Cis. I think it's Paul who
> ays he's met him/heard him and what a nice bloke he is.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:23
> Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Hilary I agree with you there...overall I do like him and I enjoyed his book
> n MB. Although he thinks that Richard was responsible for the deaths of the
> oys he still is pretty much pro-Richard. I have no problem with someone who
> hinks it probable that Richard could have had a hand in their demise as long as
> hey are fair in an overall summing up of Richard. Unlike Dr Starkey who do a
> omplete hatchet job on him having based everything they know about him on More
> nd Shakespeare. In fact this is the first time, via the book, I have come
> cross the Harrington family story and the part Richard played in that. No,
> ones obviously rates Richard highly....that is apparent. Having said that I do
> ind it annoying that Jones at times writes as if he know what Richard was
> ctually thinking. But there you go...Not my favourite book but not the worse
> y far...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > I still like Jones overall though. And our St Edward's crown is much newer
> nd heavier. The other was melted down during the commonwealth. It does somehow
> it with H5 wearing theà Black Prince's ruby in his helm at Agincourt.Ã
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:30
> > Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
> >
> >
> > Ã
> >
> > I know Weds...its ridiculous! eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc"
> wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >> But...but St. Edward's Crown (this is the same one that's called St.
> dward's today, yes?) is absolutely huge, and it weighs close to 5 lbs....and in
> he coronation it's replaced with a lighter crown (or is that only present day?)
> hen the Sovereign leaves the Abbey, and St. Edward's isn't used again until the
> ext coronation....
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I really can't see Richard taking the priceless
> oronation crown onto a battlefield just to create a sensation. Why not drag the
> oronation chair along as well?
> >>
> >> I think I trust John Ashdown-Hill's *Last Days of R3* more than Jones at
> his point. He demolishes the "Richard had no breakfast and didn't hear mass"
> egends and doesn't have St. Edward's anywhere near the campsite or the
> attlefield.
> >>
> >> ~Weds
> >>
> >> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >>> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> >>> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> >>> Eileen
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> -
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> d. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "marionziemke" marionziemke@... marionziemke
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:41 am ((PDT))
> Hi,
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we
> magine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the
> ing. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in
> reparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other
> hings.
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage
> is soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
> Marion Z
> P.S. I am on my part am still fighting with a new Computer systhem, so excuse my
> rief reply. I try to follow up.
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@>
> rote:
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> have breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> priests with him! :-)
> With look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> Tudor's army.
> I actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> isn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> circlet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> troops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> troops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> it right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> things. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> number of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> French invasion.
> Paul
>
>
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> > Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the
> ommencement of the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his
> elmet which we know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and
> find it rather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether
> his book is based on facts or is the book an "imagined
> > recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful
> hinking...cos if that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first
> lace. While I am all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it
> s written as what actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St
> dward's Crown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would
> ave caused a sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new
> eginning after his probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as
> have read somewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not
> ven available....?
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> e. Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:45 am ((PDT))
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign
> nvasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that
> nglish soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 10:18
> ubject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
> ichael K Jones.
>
>
>
>
> Well Eileen I hope you don't believe the nonsense that the king did not
> ave breakfast served, or hear mass when he brought his servants and
> riests with him! :-)
> ith look outs posted Richard was never surprised by the advance of
> udor's army.
> actually like Jones' idea of a crown wearing before the battle. he
> sn't saying Richard wore St Edward's crown into battle, that was a
> irclet on his helmet, but that he rode up and down in front of his
> roops, probably making a speech, wearing the big crown, giving his
> roops a focus for their endeavours. I imagine Shakespeare got part of
> t right with his calling the enemy 'scum of Bretons' amongst other
> hings. I'm sure the real Richard would have pointed out the large
> umber of foreigners in Tudor's army, and may well as even seen it as a
> rench invasion.
> aul
> On 21/05/2013 19:08, EileenB wrote:
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement
> f the battle? This was prior to wearing a smaller crown on his helmet which
> e know is fact..This is the first time I have come across this and I find it
> ather astonishing. I would add I am rather puzzled as to whether this book is
> ased on facts or is the book an "imagined
> recreation" (in the forward by A J Pollard) of Jones' wishful thinking...cos
> f that is the case I wouldnt have bought the book in the first place. While I
> m all for speculation and pushing the boundaries a bit when it is written as
> hat actually happened...Im a tad cheesed off. Returning to St Edward's
> rown."Its appearance on the battlefield was unprecedented and would have caused
> sensation".which Jones reckons Richard hoped would be a new beginning after
> is probably murder of the boys...I find it rather surprising as I have read
> omewhere else that there was such a cock-up that breakfast was not even
> vailable....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> --
> ichard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (11)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> .1. Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the Pre-contract (No genealogy
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:44 am ((PDT))
> I know - I woke up in the night thinking Jonathan Hughes, he's the guy who wrote
> he dense (I mean complex!) Alchemy book and is, I'm pretty sure, a devotee of
> icks! I've just looked at that book and he doesn't even seem to know that
> Prior Ingleby was Sir John Ingleby in another life. We shall be whirling in the
> ills next.
> he one on the web is more like a pamphlet, perhaps it was his thesis? As it's
> ree it could be.
> 've seen on ancestry that they reckon Thomas was father to John (but as priests
> would have thought them more likely to be brothers - who knows with
> tillington's escapades?)
> TW I asked the original question because I wanted to know what sort of person
> dward chose to conduct his 'marriages' and your Ebrorall (local, not well
> nown, owes you one) seems the ideal sort of candidate you would have chosen not
> ome up and coming priest/dean who was ambitious and already quite well-known.
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 22:15
> ubject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
>
>
>
> hanks a lot. I'll read it with interest - but caution. Jonathan Hughes, as you
> robably know, is a proper academic historian and is the author of ;Richard
> Ii's Religion' and ;Edward IV and Alchemy'. But I find he tends to misuse his
> ources to prove his point. Most glaringly, he writes a lot about how
> ontemporaries would have viewed Edward IV's and Richard III's horoscopes but
> is interpretations are based on total misunderstanding of just about every
> spect of astrology.
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
>
> Indeed. Here's the book 'Pastors and Visionaries - Religion and Secular Life
> n Late Medieval Yorkshire' Jonathan Hughes. It mentions 'my' Eborall and the
> tapletons etc.Ã If you google it you can read it online.
> Hardly a bodice ripper!! Cheers H.
> (Eborall is a Yorkshire name, could they perchance by brothers?)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and the
> re-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
>
> Ã
>
> Yes, that fits within the dates for his rectorship given in the passage I
> uoted from Hicks.
> Marie
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And John Eborall was rector of Paulerspury in 1451. He's mentioned in a
> uitclaim.Ã’â¬aà Òâ¬aÃ
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 21:01
> > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> he Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> >
> > Ã’â¬aÃ
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: mariewalsh2003
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 7:17 PM
> > > Subject: Re: My conclusions on Stillington and
> > > > the Pre-contract (No genealogy - honest!)
> > >
> > >
> > > > The Church had long ago absorbed the cult of the Virgin, in a very
> umble
> > > > Handmaid of the Lord way, of course. You definitely could NOT be in
> > > > trouble with the Church for devotion to the BVM.
> > >
> > > What did the regular church feel about the cult of the Black Virgin - of
> > > which Louis XI was an enthusiast?
> > >
> > > [Note for those who don't know it - many churches on the continent have
> > > "black virgin" figures, sometimes painted black, sometimes discoloured by
> > > age, usually associated with the BVM but occasionally with Mary Magdalene
> r
> > > her supposed servant Sarah. Louis gave large amounts of money to churches
> > > > with black virgins.]
> > >
> >
> > As far as I'm aware the Cath. Church is bemused and bewildered by the
> uggestion that there was any heretical cult of the Black Virgin, although yes
> here are Black Virgins. I don't think it's clear what the significance of these
> s, but my personal suggestion is that JUST MAYBE they might represent Our Lady
> f the Sorrows. I much enjoyed reading the books of Michael Baigent, Lincoln and
> o on at one time, and evidently this entertaining genre has moved on. But I
> hink it's not a good idea to take it too seriously.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (39)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> a. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Hilary Jones" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:46 am ((PDT))
> Thanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> here is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, â¬Ü The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?â¬", The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so thisà could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÃ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> b. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "Dorothea Preis" dorotheapreis@... dorotheapreis
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 1:49 am ((PDT))
> If you have problems, let me know I can send you a copy.
> Cheers, Dorothea
>
>
> _______________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:46 PM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
>
> hanks Dorothea. I shall pursue. H. (Yes I came across him in connection with
> reogory before but couldn't open that one.)
> ________________________________
> rom: Dorothea Preis <dorotheapreis@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013, 2:15
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> There is quite a bit about Dr Thomas Eborall in this article:
> J.A.F.
> homson, â¬Ü The Continuation of 'Gregory's Chronicle': A Possible Author?â¬", The
> ritish Museum Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3/4
> Autumn, 1972), pp. 92-97
> heers,
> Dorothea
> ________________________________
> rom: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> o: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 May 2013 6:29 AM
> ubject: Re: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> y Dr Thomas who was Rector of Kirkdeighton, Principal of Whittington College
> nd suspected Lollard.
> ________________________________
> rom: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> o: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> ent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 20:53
> ubject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
> Sorry, who is the second?
> arie
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> Have just discovered Robert Catesby of Newnham died in 1467 (brass in church)
> so thisà could be true or Hicks's dates wrong. Strange there were two
> reachers called Eborall; shall continue to investigateÃ
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> c. Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville?
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 3:06 am ((PDT))
> I've looked on National Archives web and can't find Hick's document but John
> borall was dead by July 1471 and guess who his great friend was? A certain
> entleman sievemaker called Mr Peter Empson of Towcester, the father of one
> ichard Empson and friend of Reggie Bray.
> Oh what a tangled web!:)
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> rote:
>
> And there's a quitclaim to John Eborall in Towcester in 1451 so ,,,,Ã still
> ooking
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2013, 19:10
> Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> oodville?
>
>
> Ã
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan"
> whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: Who Married Edward IV and Elizabeth
> > > Woodville?
> >
> >
> > > Dr Eborall seemingly claimed the credit. But it's rather odd because
> > > clandestine marriages didn't usually involve a priest and according to
> > > Titulus Regius they were married in "a profane place"
> > Marie
> >
> > Is it absolutely certain that Eborall was a real name and not somebody's
> > alias? Is he known from other sources under that name? If it's a real name
> > > it's either a thundering coincidence or Edward picked him as a joke -
> > Eboracum is York.
> >
>
> Marie replies:
>
> Yes, Eborall was a real person, but now I've looked him up I find he wasn't a
> octor but "Master John Eborall". This is from Michael Hicks' 'Edward V':-
> "About 1471, one source incidentally records that Master John Eborall, 'a good
> an and a great preacher', rector 1443-70 of Paulersbury (Northants.), had
> ffered to intercede for Robert Catesby of Newenham (Northants.) in a land
> ispute with the Queen and had indeed so, 'supposing that he might have done
> ood in the matter, forasmuch as he was then in favour because he married King
> dward and Queen Elizabeth together (as he then affirmed). His church of
> aulersbury is only just up the Great North Road from Grafton and Stony
> tratford. We do not know where Eborall was buried and hence whether he was the
> riest interred before the high altar at the London Minories to whom 'Hearne's
> ragment' attributes the marriage." (p. 41)
>
> Now it gets quite interesting, because Hicks gives his source as "PRO E
> 63/29/11, indicated to me my Prof. Rawcliffe, who kindly supplied me with a
> ranscript". Now, if you go to the PRO (now National Archives) catalogue, you
> et this description of E 163/29/11:-
>
> "Account of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII
> Exchequer: King's Remembrancer: Miscellanea of the Exchequer. CATESBY PAPERS.
> ccount of Catesby lawsuit, Hen VI-Hen VII. ^^ Edition 'A Catesby Lawsuit' ed M
> Condon and C Rawcliffe, forthcoming.
> Collection: Records of the Exchequer, and its related bodies, with those of
> he Office of First Fruits and Tenths, and the Court of Augmentations
> Date range: 22 August 1485 - 21 April 1509
> Reference:E 163/29/11"
>
> Two interesting things:
> 1) Although the date range for the lawsuit is given as HVI-HVII, the date
> ange given for the document is just Henry VII's reign
> 2) Carole Rawcliffe and Margaret Condon are intending to publish an edition of
> his document!
>
> I know I've seen references to the surname Eborall before (Patent Rolls,
> erhaps?) but I've never tried to put together a biography of Mr John - if he'd
> eally married the King and Queen you'd expect it would have made a noticeable
> ifference to his career, for instance.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (16)
> __________________________________________________________
> __________________________________________________________
> . Chris Skidmore - Bosworth -The Birth of the Tudors
> Posted by: "hjnatdat" hjnatdat@... hjnatdat
> Date: Wed May 22, 2013 2:39 am ((PDT))
> Has just arrived.
> A fat book - 400 pages - over 300 devoted to the battle and before. Nice
> ictures. A lot on Buckingham rebellion. We shall see.
> ity about the cover showing a soldier of the wrong era but Skidmore's picture
> akes him look like a model. Well he is an MP.
> No to be fair, he's an FRHA and we need younger historians.
> On dipping there seems to be an awful lot of reliance on Croyland and
> chroniclers' everything they say is recited as fact. Indeed that is
> rightening. So we have More's version of the Tower meeting as though Skidmore
> ad been there. Now I know we go on about Hicks and his 'might have' and 'could
> ave' but to have witness reports treated as fact ...... I would say it's a book
> imed at blokes (am I insulting them?)with little character analysis, just this
> appened and then that happened (as told by the chroniclers of course). And in
> he chapter on the carpark PL and JAH don't exist at all. It was Leicester Unis
> dea.
> Oh dear. Get back to Stillington Hilary (who incidentally doesn't get a mention
> n the book at all!)
>
>
>
> essages in this topic (1)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ahoo! Groups Links
> Digest Email | Traditional
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-23 17:35:32
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> Wearing a crown in battle would seem to be both folly and fearless. It
> show you where your king is, and should protect.....but it also gives the
> opposing forces one great big target!
He turned himself into a living banner....
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> Wearing a crown in battle would seem to be both folly and fearless. It
> show you where your king is, and should protect.....but it also gives the
> opposing forces one great big target!
He turned himself into a living banner....
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-23 23:27:41
"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? [snip]
Carol responds:
He wore it for his coronation, but I doubt that he wore it on the battlefield. We discussed it earlier--I thought that the picture of it (along with St. Edith's crown, which Anne wore for the coronation) in Hammond and Sutton's "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" p. 122 was a photograph, but it turns out to be a very detailed line drawing. It's highly unlikely that he wore such a heavy, ornate crown into battle.
According to this site, it was worn at their coronation by all English monarchs (except the uncrowned Edward V) from Edward I to Charles I but was destroyed by Parliament in 1649. Supposedly, the present crown (the one with purple velvet) was made from its fragments for Charles II.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517021/Saint-Edwards-Crown
I thought that Henry VII broke tradition and had a different crown made, but maybe that was for ceremonies other than the coronation. Alternatively, Britannica is wrong and he didn't want to wear Richard's crown at his own coronation?
Anyway, that's all I know at the moment about Saint Edward's crown. If you can find a copy of Hammond and Sutton's book, check out the picture. Imagine a cross between the present crown and this one (the crown of the Holy Roman Emperor) but minus the velvet:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/WmHohenzollern/Weltliche_Schatzkammer_Wien_265.jpg
Richard could not possibly have worn that into battle over, under, or instead of his helmet.
Carol
>
> Has anyone heard of Richard wearing St Edward's Crown before the commencement of the battle? [snip]
Carol responds:
He wore it for his coronation, but I doubt that he wore it on the battlefield. We discussed it earlier--I thought that the picture of it (along with St. Edith's crown, which Anne wore for the coronation) in Hammond and Sutton's "Richard III: The Road to Bosworth Field" p. 122 was a photograph, but it turns out to be a very detailed line drawing. It's highly unlikely that he wore such a heavy, ornate crown into battle.
According to this site, it was worn at their coronation by all English monarchs (except the uncrowned Edward V) from Edward I to Charles I but was destroyed by Parliament in 1649. Supposedly, the present crown (the one with purple velvet) was made from its fragments for Charles II.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517021/Saint-Edwards-Crown
I thought that Henry VII broke tradition and had a different crown made, but maybe that was for ceremonies other than the coronation. Alternatively, Britannica is wrong and he didn't want to wear Richard's crown at his own coronation?
Anyway, that's all I know at the moment about Saint Edward's crown. If you can find a copy of Hammond and Sutton's book, check out the picture. Imagine a cross between the present crown and this one (the crown of the Holy Roman Emperor) but minus the velvet:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/WmHohenzollern/Weltliche_Schatzkammer_Wien_265.jpg
Richard could not possibly have worn that into battle over, under, or instead of his helmet.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 01:21:00
"marionziemke" wrote:
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we imagine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the king. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in preparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other things.
>
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage his soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Carol responds:
No, because neither the Croyland chronicler nor any other writers was actually present in the camp. Many of the witnesses died with Richard at Bosworth, and neither Northumberland nor Thomas Howard ever spoke a word about what really happened.
The story that Richard's priests couldn't find one thing or another and ended up not serving him mass comes from the son of one of Richard's servants who did survive and remained loyal to him (supposedly, he performed the same job for Margaret Beaufort, who valued him for his loyalty and liked to hear him talk about Richard!). However, the son seems to have bungled or invented some of the details since it's most unlikely that any such incident occurred.
Carol
> I am agreeing on that. I guess warfare back than was far more organized than we imagine These days. No one would Forget to take care of the well being of the king. He sure had breakfast served and probably they had also dinner in preparation. Maybe Richard didn´t want breakfast because he was busy with other things.
>
> As for the crown, it would make sense if he wore it for a speech to encourage his soldiers. Aren´t there any reliable historic accounts?
Carol responds:
No, because neither the Croyland chronicler nor any other writers was actually present in the camp. Many of the witnesses died with Richard at Bosworth, and neither Northumberland nor Thomas Howard ever spoke a word about what really happened.
The story that Richard's priests couldn't find one thing or another and ended up not serving him mass comes from the son of one of Richard's servants who did survive and remained loyal to him (supposedly, he performed the same job for Margaret Beaufort, who valued him for his loyalty and liked to hear him talk about Richard!). However, the son seems to have bungled or invented some of the details since it's most unlikely that any such incident occurred.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 01:28:26
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 01:34:12
Carol earlier:
> Richard could not possibly have worn that into battle over, under, or instead of his helmet.
Carol again:
Ignore that. I understand now that you were referring to a speech before the battle, for which there is no reliable authority (though it's not impossible).
Carol
> Richard could not possibly have worn that into battle over, under, or instead of his helmet.
Carol again:
Ignore that. I understand now that you were referring to a speech before the battle, for which there is no reliable authority (though it's not impossible).
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 05:24:34
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to
> them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him
> unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Also, all sources seem to agree that he fought ferociously, so there must
have been an element of "I don't care if he *is* a king, I'm going to kill
him before he kills me."
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to
> them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him
> unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Also, all sources seem to agree that he fought ferociously, so there must
have been an element of "I don't care if he *is* a king, I'm going to kill
him before he kills me."
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 10:40:01
Somehow it seemed permissible to knock of a king clandestinely but that was usually authorised by another king (E2, R2, H6). They had some strange double standards; and it wasn't a common English footsoldier doing it.
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 10:56:57
Yes, I thought the programme was pretty good - not least because it stressed that we can't *know* what happened and offered various competing theories. But why is it so easy and uncontroversial to do that for events in 1536, but apparently so difficult to adopt the same approach for 1483-85 when we have even less in the way of reliable sources?
And, I agree, Starkey was impressive. He's an awkward and eccentric man, but he certainly doesn't view Henry VIII through rose-tinted glasses. He's honest and objective, but somehow there isn't the same animus there that he seems to feel towards Richard. I wonder if that's partly a consequence of Tudor history being less obviously adversarial than the traditionalist/revisionist debate?
On a different subject, I'm pleased to see the new Leicester University paper suggests the academics aren't bound by the same tribal priorities as the press office (which I suggested was the case before):
""The paper highlights the fact this was a public archaeology project
initiated by Philippa Langley, of the Richard III Society, and
executed by a team of archaeologists and other specialists from the
University of Leicester."
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:40
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Somehow it seemed permissible to knock of a king clandestinely but that was usually authorised by another king (E2, R2, H6). They had some strange double standards; and it wasn't a common English footsoldier doing it.
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
And, I agree, Starkey was impressive. He's an awkward and eccentric man, but he certainly doesn't view Henry VIII through rose-tinted glasses. He's honest and objective, but somehow there isn't the same animus there that he seems to feel towards Richard. I wonder if that's partly a consequence of Tudor history being less obviously adversarial than the traditionalist/revisionist debate?
On a different subject, I'm pleased to see the new Leicester University paper suggests the academics aren't bound by the same tribal priorities as the press office (which I suggested was the case before):
""The paper highlights the fact this was a public archaeology project
initiated by Philippa Langley, of the Richard III Society, and
executed by a team of archaeologists and other specialists from the
University of Leicester."
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:40
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Somehow it seemed permissible to knock of a king clandestinely but that was usually authorised by another king (E2, R2, H6). They had some strange double standards; and it wasn't a common English footsoldier doing it.
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 11:08:17
At Last!!
Re Starkey, I just think he's comfortable around the Tudors because he knows the subject well. He gets uncomfortable when he diversifies, makes silly statements and thus looks silly. Perhaps someone's told him to stick to what he's good at?
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:56
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Yes, I thought the programme was pretty good - not least because it stressed that we can't *know* what happened and offered various competing theories. But why is it so easy and uncontroversial to do that for events in 1536, but apparently so difficult to adopt the same approach for 1483-85 when we have even less in the way of reliable sources?
And, I agree, Starkey was impressive. He's an awkward and eccentric man, but he certainly doesn't view Henry VIII through rose-tinted glasses. He's honest and objective, but somehow there isn't the same animus there that he seems to feel towards Richard. I wonder if that's partly a consequence of Tudor history being less obviously adversarial than the traditionalist/revisionist debate?
On a different subject, I'm pleased to see the new Leicester University paper suggests the academics aren't bound by the same tribal priorities as the press office (which I suggested was the case before):
""The paper highlights the fact this was a public archaeology project
initiated by Philippa Langley, of the Richard III Society, and
executed by a team of archaeologists and other specialists from the
University of Leicester."
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:40
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Somehow it seemed permissible to knock of a king clandestinely but that was usually authorised by another king (E2, R2, H6). They had some strange double standards; and it wasn't a common English footsoldier doing it.
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Re Starkey, I just think he's comfortable around the Tudors because he knows the subject well. He gets uncomfortable when he diversifies, makes silly statements and thus looks silly. Perhaps someone's told him to stick to what he's good at?
________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:56
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Yes, I thought the programme was pretty good - not least because it stressed that we can't *know* what happened and offered various competing theories. But why is it so easy and uncontroversial to do that for events in 1536, but apparently so difficult to adopt the same approach for 1483-85 when we have even less in the way of reliable sources?
And, I agree, Starkey was impressive. He's an awkward and eccentric man, but he certainly doesn't view Henry VIII through rose-tinted glasses. He's honest and objective, but somehow there isn't the same animus there that he seems to feel towards Richard. I wonder if that's partly a consequence of Tudor history being less obviously adversarial than the traditionalist/revisionist debate?
On a different subject, I'm pleased to see the new Leicester University paper suggests the academics aren't bound by the same tribal priorities as the press office (which I suggested was the case before):
""The paper highlights the fact this was a public archaeology project
initiated by Philippa Langley, of the Richard III Society, and
executed by a team of archaeologists and other specialists from the
University of Leicester."
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:40
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
Somehow it seemed permissible to knock of a king clandestinely but that was usually authorised by another king (E2, R2, H6). They had some strange double standards; and it wasn't a common English footsoldier doing it.
Dare I say it but David Starkey was very good on H8 on the Anne Boleyn programme last night. Whilst others were trying to say it was a Cromwell conspiracy (apart from PG who tried to say Anne commited incest of course) Starkey held out that Henry was very good at convincing himself that whatever awful deeds he did were not for himself but the greater good. In this he does seem to mirror his grandfather Edward's behaviour at times.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 1:28
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
Carol responds:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
Still, I very much want you to be right.
Poor Richard!
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 11:12:51
We know that the French pikemen were acting as Henry's bodyguard, so
would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked.
William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have
been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from
or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his
heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at
the time of the Harrington skuffles.
Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Paul
On 24/05/2013 01:28, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
> Carol responds:
>
> So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
>
> But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
>
> Still, I very much want you to be right.
>
> Poor Richard!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked.
William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have
been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from
or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his
heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at
the time of the Harrington skuffles.
Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Paul
On 24/05/2013 01:28, justcarol67 wrote:
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>> Your point about the French mercenaries is very good. It was after all a foreign invasion and that's probably why Richard ended up as he did. It's arguable that English soldiers would have hesitated at actually killing an annointed king.
> Carol responds:
>
> So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
>
> But I agree that the English, except possibly the Earl of Oxford with his long-standing grudge against the House of York, would have balked at killing an anointed English king--unless they remembered that that king's brother had killed Henry VI and thought that Richard was a usurper who had killed the rightful king, Edward V, in which case, his having been anointed and crowned might not matter to them, at least not in the heat of battle and the excitement of seeing him unexpectedly unhorsed and helpless.
>
> Still, I very much want you to be right.
>
> Poor Richard!
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 12:53:49
Carol said:
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
Liz replied: I always thought the thing about a Welshman killing him was a myth (like Tudor's "Welshness"
So might the French--if it were an anointed *French* king. But Richard was English and they saw him as an enemy. But wasn't it the Welsh who actually killed him? I guess to them he was the Sassanach.
Liz replied: I always thought the thing about a Welshman killing him was a myth (like Tudor's "Welshness"
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 18:30:54
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
.
.
.
> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Weds writes:
Any chance of getting in a good medium?
.
.
.
> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Weds writes:
Any chance of getting in a good medium?
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-24 21:19:07
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> The story that Richard's priests couldn't find one thing or another and
> ended up not serving him mass comes from the son of one of Richard's
> servants who did survive and remained loyal to him (supposedly, he
> performed the same job for Margaret Beaufort, who valued him for his
> loyalty and liked to hear him talk about Richard!). However, the son seems
> to have bungled or invented some of the details since it's most unlikely
> that any such incident occurred.
The version I heard was that Richard refused to have prayers said for
victory, saying that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win
whether he prayed or not, and if it wasn't God's will that he should win
then to pray for victory would be blasphemous. This seems to me very
likely - since it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a devout but
free-thinking and intelligent man who liked to listen to theological
debates.
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 1:20 AM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> The story that Richard's priests couldn't find one thing or another and
> ended up not serving him mass comes from the son of one of Richard's
> servants who did survive and remained loyal to him (supposedly, he
> performed the same job for Margaret Beaufort, who valued him for his
> loyalty and liked to hear him talk about Richard!). However, the son seems
> to have bungled or invented some of the details since it's most unlikely
> that any such incident occurred.
The version I heard was that Richard refused to have prayers said for
victory, saying that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win
whether he prayed or not, and if it wasn't God's will that he should win
then to pray for victory would be blasphemous. This seems to me very
likely - since it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a devout but
free-thinking and intelligent man who liked to listen to theological
debates.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-24 22:02:25
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of today's popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. It's always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 00:02:11
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of
> being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of
> virility or masculinity.
The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although
he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not
having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well
it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of
> being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of
> virility or masculinity.
The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although
he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not
having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well
it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 00:08:51
Hi, Sandra
One might think of Richard being a metrosexual, or in touch with his feminine side, without any hint of being gay or even swinging both ways. The technically correct description of the bones is gracile, that is the term used in anthropology; I'm a bit surprised <ahem> that the bone specialist, Dr. Appleby ( I cannot tell a lie; I did it with my widdle mattock! ), didn't use that term more often than she did the word feminine.
I definitely agree that a guy with a relatively delicate build can be just as masculine in his own way as a guy who is a lineal successor to the Neandertals. I definitely think a guy like Richard could make up in brains what he lacked in brawn. But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard's bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced very complex and difficult to solve.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of today's popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. It's always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
One might think of Richard being a metrosexual, or in touch with his feminine side, without any hint of being gay or even swinging both ways. The technically correct description of the bones is gracile, that is the term used in anthropology; I'm a bit surprised <ahem> that the bone specialist, Dr. Appleby ( I cannot tell a lie; I did it with my widdle mattock! ), didn't use that term more often than she did the word feminine.
I definitely agree that a guy with a relatively delicate build can be just as masculine in his own way as a guy who is a lineal successor to the Neandertals. I definitely think a guy like Richard could make up in brains what he lacked in brawn. But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard's bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced very complex and difficult to solve.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of today's popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. It's always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 02:54:13
Matt Bellamy is one of those popular singers (also lead guitar and piano) that fits that description, supposedly 5'7" but I have been close enough to him to believe that's stretching the truth! Skinny as a rail, but very energetic on stage and voted NME magazine's Sexiest Man in Music more times than I can remember! ( and yes I have had a little something to do with that :-D)
Nicole~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:02:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by todayýs standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of todayýs popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime ý and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. Itýs always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, thatýs my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Nicole~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 22:02:21 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by todayýs standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of todayýs popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime ý and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. Itýs always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, thatýs my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 04:01:34
Sorry, but jeeze Louise, we are talking 500 years ago. People were smaller, nutrition was different, and I think Richard was probably the smallest brother of a large brood. Cicely was at the end of her reproductive period, as was her King, and do we have any genetic comparisons to others on both sides of the family. I am so ready for someone to run screaming and say, STOP, this guy was man enough to sire children, ride all over England and fight to the death. He was small, but he was "normal" dealing with a problem, which no one, not Dr, Mattock or anyone else, so far has explained Ina logical and clinical way......at least to satisfy my curiosity.
On May 24, 2013, at 6:08 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
Hi, Sandra
One might think of Richard being a metrosexual, or in touch with his feminine side, without any hint of being gay or even swinging both ways. The technically correct description of the bones is gracile, that is the term used in anthropology; I'm a bit surprised <ahem> that the bone specialist, Dr. Appleby ( I cannot tell a lie; I did it with my widdle mattock! ), didn't use that term more often than she did the word feminine.
I definitely agree that a guy with a relatively delicate build can be just as masculine in his own way as a guy who is a lineal successor to the Neandertals. I definitely think a guy like Richard could make up in brains what he lacked in brawn. But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard's bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced very complex and difficult to solve.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:02 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of today's popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. It's always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
On May 24, 2013, at 6:08 PM, "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60@...>> wrote:
Hi, Sandra
One might think of Richard being a metrosexual, or in touch with his feminine side, without any hint of being gay or even swinging both ways. The technically correct description of the bones is gracile, that is the term used in anthropology; I'm a bit surprised <ahem> that the bone specialist, Dr. Appleby ( I cannot tell a lie; I did it with my widdle mattock! ), didn't use that term more often than she did the word feminine.
I definitely agree that a guy with a relatively delicate build can be just as masculine in his own way as a guy who is a lineal successor to the Neandertals. I definitely think a guy like Richard could make up in brains what he lacked in brawn. But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard's bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced very complex and difficult to solve.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>
or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:02 PM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Oh, dear. Being small-boned and delicate to look at, to say nothing of being good-looking, at least by today's standards, does not mean a lack of virility or masculinity. A lot of today's popular singers and actors fit the description well. Do they all lack virility and masculinity? Why is it necessary to be built like a brick outhouse, stride around making crude jokes, bed everything that moves or be hail-fellow-well-met in order to be thought virile and masculine? Is there an underlying hint here that perhaps Richard was not entirely heterosexual? If so, I believe there would have been more hints and nudge-nudges during his lifetime and certainly afterward. Just think what a neat weapon in the Tudor propaganda arsenal. I think he was probably more subtle than the rest of them, and quieter, but just as virile and masculine. It's always the quiet ones, you know...
Well, that's my opinion, anyway.
Sandra
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 09:50:59
You missed out the :-) ;-)
Or I hope you did!!!
Paul
On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> Any chance of getting in a good medium?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Or I hope you did!!!
Paul
On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> Any chance of getting in a good medium?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 10:37:15
I'm still hoping for a time machine.
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
You missed out the :-) ;-)
Or I hope you did!!!
Paul
On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> .
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> Any chance of getting in a good medium?
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:50 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
You missed out the :-) ;-)
Or I hope you did!!!
Paul
On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> .
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
>
> Weds writes:
>
> Any chance of getting in a good medium?
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 18:24:33
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> We know that the French pikemen were acting as Henry's bodyguard, so would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked. William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at the time of the Harrington skuffles.
> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Carol responds:
Do we *know* about the French pikemen, or is that just the latest theory based in part on the new site of the battlefield? The most recent Ricardian Bulletin has an article or two (painful reading) on who killed Richard. If I recall correctly, the only self-proclaimed regicides were Welsh. Someone else who has read the articles more recently will correct me if I'm misremebering.
Carol
>
> We know that the French pikemen were acting as Henry's bodyguard, so would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked. William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at the time of the Harrington skuffles.
> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
Carol responds:
Do we *know* about the French pikemen, or is that just the latest theory based in part on the new site of the battlefield? The most recent Ricardian Bulletin has an article or two (painful reading) on who killed Richard. If I recall correctly, the only self-proclaimed regicides were Welsh. Someone else who has read the articles more recently will correct me if I'm misremebering.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 19:29:23
Claire wrote:
>
> The version I heard was that Richard refused to have prayers said for victory, saying that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win whether he prayed or not, and if it wasn't God's will that he should win then to pray for victory would be blasphemous. This seems to me very likely - since it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a devout but free-thinking and intelligent man who liked to listen to theological debates.
Carol responds:
Which is altogether a different thing from refusing to hear mass and have a last confession before the battle, as it's often interpreted. Of course, even that modified version may not be true. We have no chroniclers who were present in Richard's camp. But I think what we have is a compounding of different stories and rumors which make it appear that Richard went into battle unprepared from a Catholic standpoint--he's supposed to look blasphemous and suicidal, despair being, if I recall correctly, the deadliest sin.
I don't have time to look into it now, but I recall J A-H's explanation as being quite satisfactory.
Meantime, I'm increasingly annoyed with historians (other than Annette and J A-H) repeating the same old stories, treating the chroniclers as infallible, and refusing to look at the "evidence" from a new angle--as those of us in this forum are trying to do.
Carol
>
> The version I heard was that Richard refused to have prayers said for victory, saying that if it was God's will that he should win he'd win whether he prayed or not, and if it wasn't God's will that he should win then to pray for victory would be blasphemous. This seems to me very likely - since it's the sort of thing you'd expect from a devout but free-thinking and intelligent man who liked to listen to theological debates.
Carol responds:
Which is altogether a different thing from refusing to hear mass and have a last confession before the battle, as it's often interpreted. Of course, even that modified version may not be true. We have no chroniclers who were present in Richard's camp. But I think what we have is a compounding of different stories and rumors which make it appear that Richard went into battle unprepared from a Catholic standpoint--he's supposed to look blasphemous and suicidal, despair being, if I recall correctly, the deadliest sin.
I don't have time to look into it now, but I recall J A-H's explanation as being quite satisfactory.
Meantime, I'm increasingly annoyed with historians (other than Annette and J A-H) repeating the same old stories, treating the chroniclers as infallible, and refusing to look at the "evidence" from a new angle--as those of us in this forum are trying to do.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 20:34:55
Oops. Let me try this again.
Any chance of getting in a good medium? :) <EG> /jk
~Weds
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> You missed out the :-) ;-)
> Or I hope you did!!!
> Paul
>
> On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
> >
> > Weds writes:
> >
> > Any chance of getting in a good medium?
Any chance of getting in a good medium? :) <EG> /jk
~Weds
--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> You missed out the :-) ;-)
> Or I hope you did!!!
> Paul
>
> On 24/05/2013 18:30, wednesday_mc wrote:
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
> >
> > Weds writes:
> >
> > Any chance of getting in a good medium?
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 21:01:05
Sandra wrote:
> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>
Carol responds:
The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
Here is the original Latin
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
and a possibly more accurate translation:
"However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Carol
> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>
Carol responds:
The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
Here is the original Latin
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
and a possibly more accurate translation:
"However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 21:09:45
Twas not me, Carol. I did post about his appearance and queried virility, but not about his not having many children.
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Sandra wrote:
> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>
Carol responds:
The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
Here is the original Latin
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
and a possibly more accurate translation:
"However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Carol
From: justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:01 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Sandra wrote:
> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>
Carol responds:
The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
Here is the original Latin
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
and a possibly more accurate translation:
"However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 21:19:31
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip] But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard’s bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically â€" being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced â€" very complex and difficult to solve.
Carol responds:
Your first sentence misled me for a moment into thinking that you viewed this little fantasy as bloodthirsty. The rest of the post is closer to my view though I think that Richard was more wistful than enthusiastic, almost longing for the good old Crusader days (which had undoubtedly been presented to him in romanticized form), and at the same time wanting to lead only his own trusted men against a worthy opponent like the legendary Saladin (as opposed to a claimless exile like the Tydder or a friend-turned-traitor like Buckingham). Unfortunately for Richard in this respect, Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453.
At any rate, von Popelau, far from considering Richard thirsty, said that he had "a great heart," which I take to mean great courage and character.
But, yes, there's an element of escapism in this fantasy, almost as if he'd rather be a general on a long and arduous but heroic military campaign than king of a country that didn't appreciate his efforts to rule it justly.
Carol
>
> [snip] But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richard’s bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically â€" being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced â€" very complex and difficult to solve.
Carol responds:
Your first sentence misled me for a moment into thinking that you viewed this little fantasy as bloodthirsty. The rest of the post is closer to my view though I think that Richard was more wistful than enthusiastic, almost longing for the good old Crusader days (which had undoubtedly been presented to him in romanticized form), and at the same time wanting to lead only his own trusted men against a worthy opponent like the legendary Saladin (as opposed to a claimless exile like the Tydder or a friend-turned-traitor like Buckingham). Unfortunately for Richard in this respect, Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453.
At any rate, von Popelau, far from considering Richard thirsty, said that he had "a great heart," which I take to mean great courage and character.
But, yes, there's an element of escapism in this fantasy, almost as if he'd rather be a general on a long and arduous but heroic military campaign than king of a country that didn't appreciate his efforts to rule it justly.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-25 22:09:48
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> Which is altogether a different thing from refusing to hear mass and have
> a last confession before the battle, as it's often interpreted. Of course,
> even that modified version may not be true. We have no chroniclers who
> were present in Richard's camp. But I think what we have is a compounding
> of different stories and rumors which make it appear that Richard went
> into battle unprepared from a Catholic standpoint--he's supposed to look
> blasphemous and suicidal, despair being, if I recall correctly, the
> deadliest sin.
But even if he did actually refuse to have a mass said for victory on the
morning of the battle, he'd heard mass and presumably taken communion at
Sutton Cheney the day before - exactly how many sins do they think he could
have committed overnight?
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:29 PM
Subject: Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth
Michael K Jones.
> Which is altogether a different thing from refusing to hear mass and have
> a last confession before the battle, as it's often interpreted. Of course,
> even that modified version may not be true. We have no chroniclers who
> were present in Richard's camp. But I think what we have is a compounding
> of different stories and rumors which make it appear that Richard went
> into battle unprepared from a Catholic standpoint--he's supposed to look
> blasphemous and suicidal, despair being, if I recall correctly, the
> deadliest sin.
But even if he did actually refuse to have a mass said for victory on the
morning of the battle, he'd heard mass and presumably taken communion at
Sutton Cheney the day before - exactly how many sins do they think he could
have committed overnight?
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-25 22:50:31
Hi, Carol
Just a quick response. I don't think either of our comments excludes the other. I think Richard could have enthusiastically spoken of leading an army of Englishmen against the Turks; as I said, I feel that there were so many real life challenges facing Richard that I believe it would have been a relief to him to be able to fantasize about being in a situation where his choices of action were relatively simple and the available choices clear cut. And von Poppelau was a knight, so when he spoke of Richard's great heart, he may have been rendering an opinion based on his observation of Richard's personal bravery and perhaps other knightly qualities. On the other hand, I think that, regardless of Richard's level of enthusiasm for the dream of fighting the Turks, there was probably also a tinge of wistfulness, as he knew that in his real life he was virtually walking on a knife edge.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 5:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip] But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richardâ¬"s bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically â¬" being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced â¬" very complex and difficult to solve.
Carol responds:
Your first sentence misled me for a moment into thinking that you viewed this little fantasy as bloodthirsty. The rest of the post is closer to my view though I think that Richard was more wistful than enthusiastic, almost longing for the good old Crusader days (which had undoubtedly been presented to him in romanticized form), and at the same time wanting to lead only his own trusted men against a worthy opponent like the legendary Saladin (as opposed to a claimless exile like the Tydder or a friend-turned-traitor like Buckingham). Unfortunately for Richard in this respect, Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453.
At any rate, von Popelau, far from considering Richard thirsty, said that he had "a great heart," which I take to mean great courage and character.
But, yes, there's an element of escapism in this fantasy, almost as if he'd rather be a general on a long and arduous but heroic military campaign than king of a country that didn't appreciate his efforts to rule it justly.
Carol
Just a quick response. I don't think either of our comments excludes the other. I think Richard could have enthusiastically spoken of leading an army of Englishmen against the Turks; as I said, I feel that there were so many real life challenges facing Richard that I believe it would have been a relief to him to be able to fantasize about being in a situation where his choices of action were relatively simple and the available choices clear cut. And von Poppelau was a knight, so when he spoke of Richard's great heart, he may have been rendering an opinion based on his observation of Richard's personal bravery and perhaps other knightly qualities. On the other hand, I think that, regardless of Richard's level of enthusiasm for the dream of fighting the Turks, there was probably also a tinge of wistfulness, as he knew that in his real life he was virtually walking on a knife edge.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of justcarol67
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 5:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Johanne Tournier wrote:
>
> [snip] But also that there is some evidence that he may have talked in a rather bloodthirsty fashion (to von Poppelau, wishing he could fight the Turks with an army composed of just his own Englishmen). Some people have less than generously held that this showed Richardâ¬"s bloodthirsty side, but I think more likely it was something about which he could opine enthusiastically â¬" being able to assail the Turkish hordes was something on which the entire continent of Europe could agree, and it was something which had a simple solution: repel the nasty Turks, and you were sure to be a celebrated hero, unlike the fratricidal wars in England, into which Richard was sucked regardless of any wishes he might have had to the contrary. Let alone the other problems that Richard as Protector and then King faced â¬" very complex and difficult to solve.
Carol responds:
Your first sentence misled me for a moment into thinking that you viewed this little fantasy as bloodthirsty. The rest of the post is closer to my view though I think that Richard was more wistful than enthusiastic, almost longing for the good old Crusader days (which had undoubtedly been presented to him in romanticized form), and at the same time wanting to lead only his own trusted men against a worthy opponent like the legendary Saladin (as opposed to a claimless exile like the Tydder or a friend-turned-traitor like Buckingham). Unfortunately for Richard in this respect, Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453.
At any rate, von Popelau, far from considering Richard thirsty, said that he had "a great heart," which I take to mean great courage and character.
But, yes, there's an element of escapism in this fantasy, almost as if he'd rather be a general on a long and arduous but heroic military campaign than king of a country that didn't appreciate his efforts to rule it justly.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-26 02:15:45
"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> 'Twas not me, Carol. I did post about his appearance and queried virility, but not about his not having many children.
Carol responds:
Sorry, Sandra. I was actually responding to Claire, who was responding to you, but I accidentally saved your name instead of hers.
Carol
>
> 'Twas not me, Carol. I did post about his appearance and queried virility, but not about his not having many children.
Carol responds:
Sorry, Sandra. I was actually responding to Claire, who was responding to you, but I accidentally saved your name instead of hers.
Carol
Re: Psychology of a Battle: Bosworth Michael K Jones.
2013-05-26 10:31:51
Yes we do, though off hand I haven't got the references to hand. Jones
will have them.
Paul
On 25/05/2013 18:24, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> We know that the French pikemen were acting as Henry's bodyguard, so would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked. William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at the time of the Harrington skuffles.
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we *know* about the French pikemen, or is that just the latest theory based in part on the new site of the battlefield? The most recent Ricardian Bulletin has an article or two (painful reading) on who killed Richard. If I recall correctly, the only self-proclaimed regicides were Welsh. Someone else who has read the articles more recently will correct me if I'm misremebering.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
will have them.
Paul
On 25/05/2013 18:24, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>> We know that the French pikemen were acting as Henry's bodyguard, so would have engaged with Richard and his household when they attacked. William Stanley's men were those who surrounded him, and so would have been mixed in with the French. We have no idea where Stanley's came from or who actually killed the king. Stanley's men could have been from his heartland of the north west, may even included men who were around at the time of the Harrington skuffles.
>> Who knows? Only the dead, and they aren't talking.
> Carol responds:
>
> Do we *know* about the French pikemen, or is that just the latest theory based in part on the new site of the battlefield? The most recent Ricardian Bulletin has an article or two (painful reading) on who killed Richard. If I recall correctly, the only self-proclaimed regicides were Welsh. Someone else who has read the articles more recently will correct me if I'm misremebering.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-26 10:38:31
So are you saying it could mean he was weakly supported, i.e. his forces
were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
Paul
On 25/05/2013 21:01, justcarol67 wrote:
> Sandra wrote:
>> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
>
> This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
>
> Here is the original Latin
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
>
> and a possibly more accurate translation:
>
> "However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
>
> http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
>
> The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
>
> Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
Paul
On 25/05/2013 21:01, justcarol67 wrote:
> Sandra wrote:
>> The reference said something to the effect that he fought bravely although he was "not virile" - I wonder if in fact it was a reference to his not having many children, but since it was in the context of his fighting well it probably refers to his not having a very macho appearance.
>>
> Carol responds:
>
> The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
>
> This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
>
> Here is the original Latin
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
>
> and a possibly more accurate translation:
>
> "However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
>
> http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
>
> The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
>
> Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 15:09:25
Carol earlier:
> >
> > The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
> >
> > This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
> >
> > Here is the original Latin
> >
> > "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
> >
> > and a possibly more accurate translation:
> >
> > "However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
> >
> > http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
> >
> > The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
> >
> > Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>
> So are you saying it could mean he was weakly supported, i.e. his forces were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
Carol responds:
Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't fit with "viribus" at all.
But, then, my Latin is so rusty that I had to look everything up and I could be completely mistaken.
Apologies if this posts twice. I found it this morning looking as if I never sent it!
Carol
> >
> > The reference is to Rous, who wrote, "If I may speak the truth to his honour, although small of body and weak in strength, he most valiantly defended himself as a noble knight to his last breath."
> >
> > This is the usual translation, which is all over the Internet and was, I believe, originally Caroline Halsted's, or, at least, it's the one she uses.
> >
> > Here is the original Latin
> >
> > "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson, treson, treson'"
> >
> > and a possibly more accurate translation:
> >
> > "However, if I might speak the truth to his honour as a noble soldier, though he was slight in body and weak in strength, to his last breath he held himself nobly in a defending manner, often crying that he was betrayed and saying, 'treason, treason, treason.'"
> >
> > http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/history/meetrichard.html
> >
> > The relevant portion is the phrase "corpore parvus et viribus debilis." The first part, "corpore parvus," is unambiguous and means "small body." "Viribus debilis," which our Leicester team thinks is derogatory to Richard's masculinity, is admittedly more ambiguous since "vis" (ablative plural "viribus") can mean either strength or military resources and "debilis" has all sorts of meanings, including "feeble," "frail," and even "crippled." Both translations that I found render "viribus debilis" as "weak in strength," which makes more sense in the context than "weakened military forces." "Crippled" also doesn't seem to fit since it doesn't go with "strength." And, Jo Appleby and friends to the contrary, there's no implication as far as I can determine of lack of masculinity. I think that Jo and possibly Lin Foxhall are confusing "vis" (strength) with "vir" (man).
> >
> > Just my overly complicated take on the matter. Marie or anyone whose Latin background is stronger than mine, please feel free to correct me.
Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>
> So are you saying it could mean he was weakly supported, i.e. his forces were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
Carol responds:
Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't fit with "viribus" at all.
But, then, my Latin is so rusty that I had to look everything up and I could be completely mistaken.
Apologies if this posts twice. I found it this morning looking as if I never sent it!
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 18:05:52
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> fit with "viribus" at all.
I shall try passing this through my English-speaking Italian friend to her
Latin-speaking Italian friend and see what she makes of it. But even if it
does mean that he was physically weak, it's not necessarily correct. Rous
may have assumed that he was weak because of his slender build, but if you
have the right sort of muscles it's possible to be quite skinny and
frail-looking and actually have muscles like steel hawsers.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> fit with "viribus" at all.
I shall try passing this through my English-speaking Italian friend to her
Latin-speaking Italian friend and see what she makes of it. But even if it
does mean that he was physically weak, it's not necessarily correct. Rous
may have assumed that he was weak because of his slender build, but if you
have the right sort of muscles it's possible to be quite skinny and
frail-looking and actually have muscles like steel hawsers.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 18:07:03
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> fit with "viribus" at all.
You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> fit with "viribus" at all.
You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 18:52:56
Oh!! Can we run it by another Latin scholar to be sure....
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > fit with "viribus" at all.
>
> You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > fit with "viribus" at all.
>
> You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 18:57:03
Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh!! Can we run it by another Latin scholar to be sure....
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > > fit with "viribus" at all.
> >
> > You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Oh!! Can we run it by another Latin scholar to be sure....
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: justcarol67
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > > fit with "viribus" at all.
> >
> > You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 20:36:19
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
It's this -
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
treson, treson'"
And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
It's this -
"Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
treson, treson'"
And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 20:40:56
Okee Dokee....eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 20:50:41
Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 20:59:21
Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
As I recall, that's almost exactly the wording given by Lin Foxhall of Univ.
of Leicester.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan"
<whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
As I recall, that's almost exactly the wording given by Lin Foxhall of Univ.
of Leicester.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan"
<whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> It's this -
>
> "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
> parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> treson, treson'"
>
> And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:05:21
Im sorry...Im behind with the posts...this is Rous I presume..well...as he also said that Richard was 2 years in the womb, born with a full set of teeth, hair down to his shoulders we can hardly give him any credence on anything really...? Facts are that Richard was constantly travelling around on horseback and also gave a damn good account of himself at Bosworth dying like a man...These are the fact as we know them....Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
>
>
> As I recall, that's almost exactly the wording given by Lin Foxhall of Univ.
> of Leicester.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
>
>
> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
>
> If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
> >
> > It's this -
> >
> > "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
>
> > parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> > clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> > treson, treson'"
> >
> > And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen & Everyone -
>
>
>
> As I recall, that's almost exactly the wording given by Lin Foxhall of Univ.
> of Leicester.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:51 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
>
>
> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
>
> If you want the whole paragraph translated she will do that for us...Eileen
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: EileenB
> > To:
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 6:57 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > > Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What
> > > exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
> >
> > It's this -
> >
> > "Attamen si ad eius honorem veritatem dicam ut nobilis miles licet corpore
>
> > parvus et viribus debilis ad ultimum anhelitum suum modo defensorio
> > clarissime se habuit, saepius se proditum clamans et dicens, 'treson,
> > treson, treson'"
> >
> > And the question is what exactly "viribus debilis" means.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:27:59
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
[person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
"viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
[person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
"viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:34:39
Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:45:58
On 27/05/2013 15:09, justcarol67 wrote:
> Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>> >
>> >So are you saying it could mean he was weakly supported, i.e. his forces were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't fit with "viribus" at all.
>
> But, then, my Latin is so rusty that I had to look everything up and I could be completely mistaken.
>
> Apologies if this posts twice. I found it this morning looking as if I never sent it!
>
> Carol
I think that makes sense, never having had any Latin, but did German
which has many cases similar to Latin.
Thanks Carol.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
> Paul Trevor Bale responded:
>> >
>> >So are you saying it could mean he was weakly supported, i.e. his forces were not to strength, rather than anything of him personally?
> Carol responds:
>
> Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't fit with "viribus" at all.
>
> But, then, my Latin is so rusty that I had to look everything up and I could be completely mistaken.
>
> Apologies if this posts twice. I found it this morning looking as if I never sent it!
>
> Carol
I think that makes sense, never having had any Latin, but did German
which has many cases similar to Latin.
Thanks Carol.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:46:40
Well my neighbour gave me an explanation which entirely went over my head..something on the lines of 'debilis' was an adjective and 'veribus' was plural. As I said she used to teach Latin. But there you go.. I think we are in danger here of dissecting every little word too much here. Rous was a liar in any case....although maybe it would be kinder to say he embroidered the truth a little...but it would be folly to give him too much credance...folly borne from desperation of lack of facts I think. The facts are that Richard was in possession of stamina...we know that from his itinery...forever travelling...etc.,
I wouldnt place much trust on the colouring of any portrait from that era...they have nearly all been overpainted through the centuries and sometimes with less gifted hand than the original artist..eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
>
> That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
> debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
> statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
> [person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
>
> It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
> colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
> "viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
>
I wouldnt place much trust on the colouring of any portrait from that era...they have nearly all been overpainted through the centuries and sometimes with less gifted hand than the original artist..eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
>
> That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
> debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
> statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
> [person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
>
> It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
> colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
> "viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:50:56
right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
Nicole
~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Enough already. I donýt care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnýt do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heýd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heýd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iým miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iýll be civil again come the morning.
Nicole
~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Enough already. I donýt care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnýt do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heýd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heýd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iým miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iýll be civil again come the morning.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:51:38
I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:56:03
Claire still spreading the good news, I see, or rather rumours, and
reveling in it!
Who btw is Stella? Another of your panel of 'experts'?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 21:04, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
> That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
> debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
> statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
> [person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
>
> It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
> colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
> "viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
reveling in it!
Who btw is Stella? Another of your panel of 'experts'?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 21:04, Claire M Jordan wrote:
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 8:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>> Debilis (weak)....Viribus (in strength)....
> That's the usual translation but Stella's daughter disagrees - she says
> debilis can be either an adjective or a noun but the grammar in this
> statement indicates it's a noun in this case, so it's not "weak" but "a weak
> [person]", usually meaning a cripple but it can also mean an invalid.
>
> It could be that Ann did die of TB, and Richard's pink, white and blue
> colouring in the NPG portrait does mean he'd caught it, in which case
> "viribus debilis" would mean "weakened by poor health".
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:56:40
Hmmm Nicole you remind me...I watched a documentary where it was explained that the armour was not that heavy actually...the backpacks that today's soldiers have to lug about are much heavier...Of course after fighting for long periods obviously it would tell and Michael Jones says in his book that armies from that period would often agree to have a breather after which they then re-proceeded to bash the living daylights out of each other...What madness war is...eileen
--- In , NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...> wrote:
>
> right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
> Nicole
>
> ~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
>
> To:
> From: sandramachin@...
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...> wrote:
>
> right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
> Nicole
>
> ~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
>
> To:
> From: sandramachin@...
> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 21:58:25
On 27/05/2013 21:34, SandraMachin wrote:
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
>
Three cheers for Sandra! Very well said!
And if this is you not being civil, carry on that way, cause I'm with
you in the same uncivil camp!
Paul
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
>
Three cheers for Sandra! Very well said!
And if this is you not being civil, carry on that way, cause I'm with
you in the same uncivil camp!
Paul
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:03:14
Sorry, Nicole. Your sister and Joan of Arc excepted. And any girl I may have
unintentionally offended!
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: NICOLE MASIKA
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:50 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Richard's Appearance
right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at
least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not
a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
Nicole
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard
was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that
face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell
out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little
more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely
render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for
wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd
have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed
assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big,
butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar
little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry.
No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
unintentionally offended!
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: NICOLE MASIKA
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:50 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Richard's Appearance
right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at
least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not
a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
Nicole
To:
From: sandramachin@...
Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard
was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that
face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell
out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little
more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely
render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for
wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd
have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed
assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big,
butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar
little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry.
No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:16:39
Oh good Eileen - I'm even enjoying Henry V's haircut more than this! PS Bravo Sandra.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I donâ¬"t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnâ¬"t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heâ¬"d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heâ¬"d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iâ¬"m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iâ¬"ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I donâ¬"t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnâ¬"t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heâ¬"d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heâ¬"d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iâ¬"m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iâ¬"ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:27:33
Eileen wrote:
> Im sorry...Im behind with the posts...this is Rous I presume..well...as he also said that Richard was 2 years in the womb, born with a full set of teeth, hair down to his shoulders we can hardly give him any credence on anything really...? Facts are that Richard was constantly travelling around on horseback and also gave a damn good account of himself at Bosworth dying like a man...These are the fact as we know them....Eileen
Weds writes:
And we can't forget his fighting at Barnet and Tewkesbury...or did his big brother and those under Richard cover for him so that the weak, frail little brother could hide out in a tent somewhere?
And there's the Scottish campaign, for which Edward praised Richard throughout London.
> Im sorry...Im behind with the posts...this is Rous I presume..well...as he also said that Richard was 2 years in the womb, born with a full set of teeth, hair down to his shoulders we can hardly give him any credence on anything really...? Facts are that Richard was constantly travelling around on horseback and also gave a damn good account of himself at Bosworth dying like a man...These are the fact as we know them....Eileen
Weds writes:
And we can't forget his fighting at Barnet and Tewkesbury...or did his big brother and those under Richard cover for him so that the weak, frail little brother could hide out in a tent somewhere?
And there's the Scottish campaign, for which Edward praised Richard throughout London.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:32:58
Eileen wrote:
> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
~Weds
> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
~Weds
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:36:19
it going to be a long post Hilary...from my brand new set of Harleian Manuscript 433....but seriously wouldnt it be nice to focus on something happy even if just for a short while..its just so depressing . Im beginning to lose the will to live....leave alone the will to post:0/ eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh good Eileen - I'm even enjoying Henry V's haircut more than this! PS Bravo Sandra.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Â
>
> I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh good Eileen - I'm even enjoying Henry V's haircut more than this! PS Bravo Sandra.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Â
>
> I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:38:44
Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:49:12
Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
From: EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
From: EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:55:32
Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Really short doublets, I’m sure.
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Really short doublets, I’m sure.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 22:58:11
Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
> >
> > Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
> >
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
> >
> > Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
> >
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:00:40
There is no answer to that. Well, not one I'd dare to post!
From: EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Really short doublets, I’m sure.
From: EileenB
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Really short doublets, I’m sure.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:01:42
Lucky you!! I look forward to it. Yes, a bit of sunshine please.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 22:36
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
it going to be a long post Hilary...from my brand new set of Harleian Manuscript 433....but seriously wouldnt it be nice to focus on something happy even if just for a short while..its just so depressing . Im beginning to lose the will to live....leave alone the will to post:0/ eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh good Eileen - I'm even enjoying Henry V's haircut more than this! PS Bravo Sandra.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Â
>
> I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Enough already. I donââ¬â ¢t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnââ¬â ¢t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heââ¬â ¢d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heââ¬â ¢d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iââ¬â ¢m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iââ¬â ¢ll be civil again come the
morning.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 22:36
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
it going to be a long post Hilary...from my brand new set of Harleian Manuscript 433....but seriously wouldnt it be nice to focus on something happy even if just for a short while..its just so depressing . Im beginning to lose the will to live....leave alone the will to post:0/ eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Oh good Eileen - I'm even enjoying Henry V's haircut more than this! PS Bravo Sandra.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 21:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Â
>
> I agree Sandra...it has been absolutely argued to death on here re Richard's health/stamina etc., Let the facts that we know for sure speak for themselves. Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Enough already. I donââ¬â ¢t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldnââ¬â ¢t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND heââ¬â ¢d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? Heââ¬â ¢d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? Iââ¬â ¢m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. Iââ¬â ¢ll be civil again come the
morning.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:07:26
Quite right too...I feel we have lowered the tone enough on here tonight..:0)
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> There is no answer to that. Well, not one I’d dare to post!
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, I’m sure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> There is no answer to that. Well, not one I’d dare to post!
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, I’m sure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:35:26
You made me laugh......l
On May 27, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Quite right too...I feel we have lowered the tone enough on here tonight..:0)
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> There is no answer to that. Well, not one Iýýýd dare to post!
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, Iýýýýýým sure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
On May 27, 2013, at 5:07 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Quite right too...I feel we have lowered the tone enough on here tonight..:0)
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> There is no answer to that. Well, not one Iýýýd dare to post!
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, Iýýýýýým sure.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:36:10
Oh I love that....do you think I can waltz in to my nearest posh shop, and walk out with some dazzling duds, on the promise of future payment!
On May 27, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
On May 27, 2013, at 4:38 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen wrote:
>
> > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>
> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>
> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>
> ~Weds
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:58:15
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was
> not.
Nobody's saying that. But if the translation is accurate it could mean he
was starting to have mobility issues (or was thought to have) or that he had
contracted Ann's disease - whatever it was. That he was very fit when he
was in Yorkshire doesn't becessarily mean he was still fit at the end - a
lot can go wrong in two years, especially in a society with hardly any
medical treatments. For all we know, he could have popped a disc!
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:34 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was
> not.
Nobody's saying that. But if the translation is accurate it could mean he
was starting to have mobility issues (or was thought to have) or that he had
contracted Ann's disease - whatever it was. That he was very fit when he
was in Yorkshire doesn't becessarily mean he was still fit at the end - a
lot can go wrong in two years, especially in a society with hardly any
medical treatments. For all we know, he could have popped a disc!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:58:49
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Well my neighbour gave me an explanation which entirely went over my
> head..something on the lines of 'debilis' was an adjective and 'veribus'
> was plural. As I said she used to teach Latin. But there you go.. I think
> we are in danger here of dissecting every little word too much here. Rous
> was a liar in any case....although maybe it would be kinder to say he
> embroidered the truth a little...
Indeed. But if the translation is correct it may be evidence that Rous had
heard about Richard having an odd-shaped spine, even if he was wrong to
think it would have weakened him.
The 3D reconstruction which Leicester did btw shows Richard as completely
normal from the waist down, and with slightly uneven shoulders and a chest
which is a strange shape but seems to have a normal lung capacity.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Well my neighbour gave me an explanation which entirely went over my
> head..something on the lines of 'debilis' was an adjective and 'veribus'
> was plural. As I said she used to teach Latin. But there you go.. I think
> we are in danger here of dissecting every little word too much here. Rous
> was a liar in any case....although maybe it would be kinder to say he
> embroidered the truth a little...
Indeed. But if the translation is correct it may be evidence that Rous had
heard about Richard having an odd-shaped spine, even if he was wrong to
think it would have weakened him.
The 3D reconstruction which Leicester did btw shows Richard as completely
normal from the waist down, and with slightly uneven shoulders and a chest
which is a strange shape but seems to have a normal lung capacity.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:59:16
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Who btw is Stella? Another of your panel of 'experts'?
An English-speaking Italian who is acting as an intermediary for a
Latin-speaking Italian who has no English.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Who btw is Stella? Another of your panel of 'experts'?
An English-speaking Italian who is acting as an intermediary for a
Latin-speaking Italian who has no English.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-27 23:59:34
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know
> you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near
> bottom...:eileen
Known in my family as Duck's Disease - arse too near the ground.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know
> you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near
> bottom...:eileen
Known in my family as Duck's Disease - arse too near the ground.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 01:21:04
Claire wrote:
"You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :( "
I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure that's what it means.......
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 1:57 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh!! Can we run it by another Latin scholar to be sure....
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > > > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > > > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > > > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > > > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > > > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > > > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > > > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > > > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > > > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > > > fit with "viribus" at all.
> > >
> > > You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
"You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :( "
I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure that's what it means.......
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 1:57 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Oh my neighbour is a latin scholar...she used to teach it too. What exactly is the text you want translated....eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Oh!! Can we run it by another Latin scholar to be sure....
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On May 27, 2013, at 12:51 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > > From: justcarol67
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:09 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > > Yes, sort of. The Latin seems ambiguous to me, but I'm very out of
> > > > practice and not good with case endings, so I could be wrong. But based on
> > > > the possible meanings of "viribus," one of which is "forces" (troops) as
> > > > opposed to "force" (strength), I think it could be translated that way
> > > > (only with a preposition like "by" because it's ablative). But the "parvus
> > > > corpore" (small body)--also ablative but singular instead of
> > > > plural--almost certainly refers to Richard himself, so most likely the
> > > > other phrase, "viribus debilis," also refers to him, but if so the use of
> > > > the plural "viribus" rather than the singular "vires" is odd. And
> > > > "debilis" looks to me like nominative or genitive singular, so it doesn't
> > > > fit with "viribus" at all.
> > >
> > > You're not going to like this, and Paul will like it even less, but Stella
> > > showed the passage to her daughter - who has studied Latin - and the
> > > daughter says that because the endings are "not in concordance", she thinks
> > > that "viribus debilis" means "having the strength of a cripple" :(
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 01:29:09
Didn't we see a man wearing a short little doublet in the picture whose name I forgot!!! You know, the one where we were arguing about that guy with the short doublet were either Richard or Hastings? Dang, I still can't remember the name! Ugh.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
> >
> > Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
> >
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 5:49 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen wrote:
> >
> > > Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
> >
> > Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
> >
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 03:17:28
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Im sorry...Im behind with the posts...this is Rous I presume..well...as he also said that Richard was 2 years in the womb, born with a full set of teeth, hair down to his shoulders we can hardly give him any credence on anything really...? Facts are that Richard was constantly travelling around on horseback and also gave a damn good account of himself at Bosworth dying like a man...These are the fact as we know them....Eileen
Carol responds:
Yes, it's Rous. Good point about the other ridiculous things he said--in the Anglia Historia (in contrast to all the good stuff he said in the unaltered Rous Roll). We need to bear in mind that he was writing in about 1490 for Henry VII.
My apologies for upsetting everyone with this topic. I was trying to show that Jo Appleby/Lin Foxhall might be mistaken in equating "viribus debilis" with lack of masculinity since "vis" means "strength" or "power" (but has that secondary meaning of military forces). I still think they are mistaken (though admittedly the *Romans* associated strength with masculinity as evidenced by the derivation of "vis" [strength] from "vir" [man]), but I also think that Rous, the slippery old so-and-so, deliberately chose an ambiguous phrase that could be interpreted in more than one way. As it stands now, I'll happily take Lin Foxhall's reading ("slight in body and weak in strength"), noting that Rous's impression of Richard, especially as he's describing him to Henry, need not be taken as fact. We're better off with Von Popelau.
Carol
>
> Im sorry...Im behind with the posts...this is Rous I presume..well...as he also said that Richard was 2 years in the womb, born with a full set of teeth, hair down to his shoulders we can hardly give him any credence on anything really...? Facts are that Richard was constantly travelling around on horseback and also gave a damn good account of himself at Bosworth dying like a man...These are the fact as we know them....Eileen
Carol responds:
Yes, it's Rous. Good point about the other ridiculous things he said--in the Anglia Historia (in contrast to all the good stuff he said in the unaltered Rous Roll). We need to bear in mind that he was writing in about 1490 for Henry VII.
My apologies for upsetting everyone with this topic. I was trying to show that Jo Appleby/Lin Foxhall might be mistaken in equating "viribus debilis" with lack of masculinity since "vis" means "strength" or "power" (but has that secondary meaning of military forces). I still think they are mistaken (though admittedly the *Romans* associated strength with masculinity as evidenced by the derivation of "vis" [strength] from "vir" [man]), but I also think that Rous, the slippery old so-and-so, deliberately chose an ambiguous phrase that could be interpreted in more than one way. As it stands now, I'll happily take Lin Foxhall's reading ("slight in body and weak in strength"), noting that Rous's impression of Richard, especially as he's describing him to Henry, need not be taken as fact. We're better off with Von Popelau.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 03:36:32
Sandra wrote:
>
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
Carol responds:
What I wonder is what happened to all the coronation robes--and the new set of robes for Prince Edward's installation as Prince of Wales? Wear once, throw away? Did they give them to lesser nobles or return them to the cloth merchants to make into something else? I can just imagine using a coronation robe as a bedspread on a cold evening.
Carol
>
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
Carol responds:
What I wonder is what happened to all the coronation robes--and the new set of robes for Prince Edward's installation as Prince of Wales? Wear once, throw away? Did they give them to lesser nobles or return them to the cloth merchants to make into something else? I can just imagine using a coronation robe as a bedspread on a cold evening.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 04:03:39
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't we see a man wearing a short little doublet in the picture whose name I forgot!!! You know, the one where we were arguing about that guy with the short doublet were either Richard or Hastings? Dang, I still can't remember the name! Ugh.
Carol responds:
That would be "Edward IV Receiving Jean de Wavrin's Book," http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward4wavrin.jpg
Personally, I don't see how that ugly, middle-aged man could possibly be Richard (aged between 19 and 22 at the time). Possibly, the men are stock figures representing courtiers, or perhaps the younger man with the garter (blue hat, brown robes) is Richard.
Compare the picture of Edward receiving Anthony Woodville's book (admittedly by an inferior artist) where Richard (at the back in blue robes with fur trim) is clearly identifiable by his royal robes:
http://www.oneinspecyal.com/assets/images/Antony_presenting_his_book_to_Edward_IV.jpg
Carol
Carol
>
> Didn't we see a man wearing a short little doublet in the picture whose name I forgot!!! You know, the one where we were arguing about that guy with the short doublet were either Richard or Hastings? Dang, I still can't remember the name! Ugh.
Carol responds:
That would be "Edward IV Receiving Jean de Wavrin's Book," http://www.luminarium.org/encyclopedia/edward4wavrin.jpg
Personally, I don't see how that ugly, middle-aged man could possibly be Richard (aged between 19 and 22 at the time). Possibly, the men are stock figures representing courtiers, or perhaps the younger man with the garter (blue hat, brown robes) is Richard.
Compare the picture of Edward receiving Anthony Woodville's book (admittedly by an inferior artist) where Richard (at the back in blue robes with fur trim) is clearly identifiable by his royal robes:
http://www.oneinspecyal.com/assets/images/Antony_presenting_his_book_to_Edward_IV.jpg
Carol
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 05:06:39
I seem to remember reading somewhere about Richard and Anne having a debt forgiven in a York (or somewhere else?) court? Perhaps the tailors got tired of extended endless credit to the duke and duchess?
::still happily picturing Richard striding about in a pair of Spanish riding boots::
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
::still happily picturing Richard striding about in a pair of Spanish riding boots::
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> > ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
> >
> > ~Weds
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 05:10:29
Those short doublets may have disguised any man's flat bottom, too. Gives a whole new meaning to "eyes up front, please."
I do love the legislation Edward had to pass, regulating those doublets. Maybe he was just jellus. :)
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, I’m sure.
>
I do love the legislation Edward had to pass, regulating those doublets. Maybe he was just jellus. :)
~Weds
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra...*everybody* with short legs had short doublets...as you may know you should never trust a man with short legs...brains too near bottom...:eileen
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Really short doublets, I’m sure.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 05:15:32
Yessss, we did. The illustration's focus was supposed to be Edward's receiving a bound book, if I recall. (Bound on cords, with book furniture, made me wonder if it was an illuminated volume or printed.)
Anyway...the short doublet was in the left side of the picture with his back to the illustrator, wasn't he?
Not that I noticed or anything. I was closely examining the book. Tome.
~Weds (who knows how to bind signatures on cords and boards, but thinks doublets are much more fun to explore)
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't we see a man wearing a short little doublet in the picture whose name I forgot!!! You know, the one where we were arguing about that guy with the short doublet were either Richard or Hastings? Dang, I still can't remember the name! Ugh.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
Anyway...the short doublet was in the left side of the picture with his back to the illustrator, wasn't he?
Not that I noticed or anything. I was closely examining the book. Tome.
~Weds (who knows how to bind signatures on cords and boards, but thinks doublets are much more fun to explore)
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Didn't we see a man wearing a short little doublet in the picture whose name I forgot!!! You know, the one where we were arguing about that guy with the short doublet were either Richard or Hastings? Dang, I still can't remember the name! Ugh.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 06:05:39
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> a
lot can go wrong in two years, especially in a society with hardly any
medical treatments. For all we know, he could have popped a disc!
It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
To:
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> a
lot can go wrong in two years, especially in a society with hardly any
medical treatments. For all we know, he could have popped a disc!
It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 06:07:26
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength
> of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure
> that's what it means.......
Yes. Stella's daughter may be mistaken - she's studied Latin but she's not
an expert. The expert on Latin whom Stella knows wasn't available today, so
her opinion is still to come - and she may or may not be better than
Eileen's expert.
But the grammatical structure of Latin and Italian is so wildly different
from that of English that I thought it would be useful to get the opinion of
a Latin scholar who was also an Italian speaker, and would be alert to
nuances that an English-speaker might miss.
The painting you're thinking of, with the guy in the very short doublet and
indecently tight tights, is probably the Jean de Warin one - but I've never
known whether Jean de Warin is the artist, the owner or one of the people in
the picture.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:21 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength
> of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure
> that's what it means.......
Yes. Stella's daughter may be mistaken - she's studied Latin but she's not
an expert. The expert on Latin whom Stella knows wasn't available today, so
her opinion is still to come - and she may or may not be better than
Eileen's expert.
But the grammatical structure of Latin and Italian is so wildly different
from that of English that I thought it would be useful to get the opinion of
a Latin scholar who was also an Italian speaker, and would be alert to
nuances that an English-speaker might miss.
The painting you're thinking of, with the guy in the very short doublet and
indecently tight tights, is probably the Jean de Warin one - but I've never
known whether Jean de Warin is the artist, the owner or one of the people in
the picture.
Re: John Welles
2013-05-28 09:21:07
A change of subject here. I know that Henry VII's half-uncle Sir John Welles was on his way to the Battle of Stoke Field with 10,000 men, but turned back to London before getting there, apparently in a panic because he received the Yorkist disinformation that Henry had lost the battle or was even dead. Does anyone know what happened after that? He does not seem to have fallen out of favour with Henry, yet Henry can hardly have been pleased with him. Instead John was given Cicely Plantagenet as a bride and was made a viscount. Not being a scholar or historian, I haven't been able to trace any further mention of this incident concerning Stoke Field, and so am a little mystified.
Sandra
Sandra
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 09:40:53
Yes armour was designed for mobility, and soldiers were trained in the
art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
Was exhausting!
Paul
On 27/05/2013 21:56, EileenB wrote:
> Hmmm Nicole you remind me...I watched a documentary where it was explained that the armour was not that heavy actually...the backpacks that today's soldiers have to lug about are much heavier...Of course after fighting for long periods obviously it would tell and Michael Jones says in his book that armies from that period would often agree to have a breather after which they then re-proceeded to bash the living daylights out of each other...What madness war is...eileen
>
> --- In , NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...> wrote:
>> right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
>> Nicole
>>
>> ~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
>>
>> To:
>> From: sandramachin@...
>> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
Was exhausting!
Paul
On 27/05/2013 21:56, EileenB wrote:
> Hmmm Nicole you remind me...I watched a documentary where it was explained that the armour was not that heavy actually...the backpacks that today's soldiers have to lug about are much heavier...Of course after fighting for long periods obviously it would tell and Michael Jones says in his book that armies from that period would often agree to have a breather after which they then re-proceeded to bash the living daylights out of each other...What madness war is...eileen
>
> --- In , NICOLE MASIKA <nicolemm_99@...> wrote:
>> right on! except who says a girl could not fight in armour? ;-) I believe at least one did though she got burned for it. Anyhow, clearly Richard was not a wimp and neither is my little sister, the triathlete.
>> Nicole
>>
>> ~~~ Music is lots of sound waves coming toward us in a completely chaotic manner and somehow our brain receives that as something beautiful - Matthew Bellamy
>>
>> To:
>> From: sandramachin@...
>> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 21:34:35 +0100
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Enough already. I don't care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn't do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he'd have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He'd have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I'm miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I'll be civil again come the morning.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 09:51:03
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 10:08:49
If you consult good old Ian Mortimer's Time Travellers Guide you will see they wore 'braies' which 'will be cut short and tight, not unlike modern underpants, with a cord at the top'. Over those you wore hose. Lowering the tone again :}
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 10:25:54
According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
close of the Middle Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
close of the Middle Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 11:08:46
It matters not...Rous was at best a bit muddled - clearly he knew nothing about the gestation period when he wrote about Richard being two years in his mother's womb but that did not stop him commenting..umm why didnt he consult an expert on the matter? but I digress - or bottom line he was an out and out lier - I believe he was known in his local town of Warwick as Plonkerpuss Rous and/or Turncoatis Rous...eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> Indeed. But if the translation is correct it may be evidence that Rous had
> heard about Richard having an odd-shaped spine, even if he was wrong to
> think it would have weakened him.
>
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> Indeed. But if the translation is correct it may be evidence that Rous had
> heard about Richard having an odd-shaped spine, even if he was wrong to
> think it would have weakened him.
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 11:38:37
From: Paul Trevor Bale
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes armour was designed for mobility, and soldiers were trained in the
art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
Was exhausting!
Especially on a hot day, which Bosworth may well have been. It's still not
as bizarre as Bronze Age battles, though. At my school there was a subject
called Classics, compulsory for years 2 and 3, which turned out to be mainly
military strategy of the ancient Greeks and Persians. I remember the
teacher telling us that because beaten bronze is more flexible than
iron/steel, Bronze Age battles of any length had to include regular breaks
for the combatants to straighten theiur swords.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Yes armour was designed for mobility, and soldiers were trained in the
art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
Was exhausting!
Especially on a hot day, which Bosworth may well have been. It's still not
as bizarre as Bronze Age battles, though. At my school there was a subject
called Classics, compulsory for years 2 and 3, which turned out to be mainly
military strategy of the ancient Greeks and Persians. I remember the
teacher telling us that because beaten bronze is more flexible than
iron/steel, Bronze Age battles of any length had to include regular breaks
for the combatants to straighten theiur swords.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 11:42:40
...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
On 28 May 2013, at 09:51, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes armour was designed for mobility, and soldiers were trained in the
> art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
> experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
> amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
> course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
> half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
> Was exhausting!
>
> Especially on a hot day, which Bosworth may well have been. It's still not
> as bizarre as Bronze Age battles, though. At my school there was a subject
> called Classics, compulsory for years 2 and 3, which turned out to be mainly
> military strategy of the ancient Greeks and Persians. I remember the
> teacher telling us that because beaten bronze is more flexible than
> iron/steel, Bronze Age battles of any length had to include regular breaks
> for the combatants to straighten theiur swords.
>
>
On 28 May 2013, at 09:51, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:40 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes armour was designed for mobility, and soldiers were trained in the
> art of finding the weak spots, the armpit, groin, chin etc. Modern
> experts agree a man fighting in full armour would lose an inordinate
> amount of weight over the course of a couple of hours, mainly water of
> course. This is the main reason there are stories of battles stopping
> half way through for the fighting men to have a break and take on water.
> Was exhausting!
>
> Especially on a hot day, which Bosworth may well have been. It's still not
> as bizarre as Bronze Age battles, though. At my school there was a subject
> called Classics, compulsory for years 2 and 3, which turned out to be mainly
> military strategy of the ancient Greeks and Persians. I remember the
> teacher telling us that because beaten bronze is more flexible than
> iron/steel, Bronze Age battles of any length had to include regular breaks
> for the combatants to straighten theiur swords.
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 12:00:07
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> It matters not...Rous was at best a bit muddled - clearly he knew nothing
> about the gestation period when he wrote about Richard being two years in
> his mother's womb but that did not stop him commenting..umm why didnt he
> consult an expert on the matter? but I digress - or bottom line he was an
> out and out lier - I believe he was known in his local town of Warwick as
> Plonkerpuss Rous and/or Turncoatis Rous...eileen
'tis true - whether he was confused or dishonest or (as I suspect) taking
the p***, he's not a reliable source. If he's referring to Richard's
crooked spine then I would think he was just assuming it had caused weakness
which in fact it didn't.
Nevertheless, if he *is* referring to Richard's crooked spine it gives us an
early point at which it was known/talked about. And if it means "his
strength at Bosworth was that of a sick person" and it means Richard was
specifically ill at Bosworth, well, a dose of 'flu' or malaria would explain
that wild and ill-thought-out charge, wouldn't it?
[But my mind is tending towards these matters, because I've been researching
my great-uncle Denis, one of the Z-Force Johnnies, whose efforts to spy on
the Japanese in wartime Burma were hampered by recurrent bouts of malaria.]
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> It matters not...Rous was at best a bit muddled - clearly he knew nothing
> about the gestation period when he wrote about Richard being two years in
> his mother's womb but that did not stop him commenting..umm why didnt he
> consult an expert on the matter? but I digress - or bottom line he was an
> out and out lier - I believe he was known in his local town of Warwick as
> Plonkerpuss Rous and/or Turncoatis Rous...eileen
'tis true - whether he was confused or dishonest or (as I suspect) taking
the p***, he's not a reliable source. If he's referring to Richard's
crooked spine then I would think he was just assuming it had caused weakness
which in fact it didn't.
Nevertheless, if he *is* referring to Richard's crooked spine it gives us an
early point at which it was known/talked about. And if it means "his
strength at Bosworth was that of a sick person" and it means Richard was
specifically ill at Bosworth, well, a dose of 'flu' or malaria would explain
that wild and ill-thought-out charge, wouldn't it?
[But my mind is tending towards these matters, because I've been researching
my great-uncle Denis, one of the Z-Force Johnnies, whose efforts to spy on
the Japanese in wartime Burma were hampered by recurrent bouts of malaria.]
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 12:01:14
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
(allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
which is often hot.
British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
mid August.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
(allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
which is often hot.
British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
mid August.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 13:31:16
Hi Paul
On the subject of Olivier's film - and not, I hasten to add, because of your mention of Dorset's doublet! - have you had chance to see the new Criterion restoration that's just been released on blu-ray? The stills I've seen look ravishing - but, annoyingly, the edition is region-locked and I can't find any information anywhere about a UK release...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On the subject of Olivier's film - and not, I hasten to add, because of your mention of Dorset's doublet! - have you had chance to see the new Criterion restoration that's just been released on blu-ray? The stills I've seen look ravishing - but, annoyingly, the edition is region-locked and I can't find any information anywhere about a UK release...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:21:04
Yes, a very long and detailed description of both men and women's clothing, from haircuts to shoes. The detail starts on page 108 and continues for several pages. I found it really interesting how much the invention of buttons was to the clothing of the time.....the things we take for granted.
On May 28, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
If you consult good old Ian Mortimer's Time Travellers Guide you will see they wore 'braies' which 'will be cut short and tight, not unlike modern underpants, with a cord at the top'. Over those you wore hose. Lowering the tone again :}
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, Iým sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
On May 28, 2013, at 4:08 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
If you consult good old Ian Mortimer's Time Travellers Guide you will see they wore 'braies' which 'will be cut short and tight, not unlike modern underpants, with a cord at the top'. Over those you wore hose. Lowering the tone again :}
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale%40sky.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
worn too!
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
> Really short doublets, Iým sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>
> From: EileenB
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Eileen wrote:
>>
>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>
>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>
>> ~Weds
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:24:19
Hi, Sandra,
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
close of the Middle
Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[email protected]
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
close of the Middle
Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[email protected]
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:35:07
Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hi, Sandra,
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
close of the Middle
Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[email protected]
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hi, Sandra,
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
close of the Middle
Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
for ease as well as privacy.
Sandra
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Paul
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[email protected]
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:37:44
Good grief! And they really are 15th century? I'm stunned. Clearly Willett and Cunnington didn't know this sort of thing. At least, if they did, it's not in my copy of their book. Well, you live and learn, as they say. Thank you, Judy.
From: Judy Thomson
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hi, Sandra,
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
From: Judy Thomson
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:24 PM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hi, Sandra,
Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
Judy
(Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:38:31
A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:42:29
Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
>
> Â
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Â Â [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
>
> Â
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Â Â [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:44:08
> Did they stay up though....
Probably not when Edward IV was around...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
Probably not when Edward IV was around...
Jonathan
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:48:03
"EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
Carol responds:
If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
Carol
>
> Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
Carol responds:
If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:50:03
Lol...they could have been whipped off in the blink of any eye...
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > Did they stay up though....
>
> Probably not when Edward IV was around...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > Did they stay up though....
>
> Probably not when Edward IV was around...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:56:00
And not just debts...wages too...look at this....
'iiij li x s to Olyver Cambre John Vaghan Rukes Metcalff Pacok (me: them two again...I just love them!..) Dennys John Marlere for there quartre wages from Midsomere to Michelle'
HM 2:25
wages paid *quarterly*..yikes...a good thing there accommodation and food were probably all in...eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
>
> http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
>
> I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
>
> Carol
>
'iiij li x s to Olyver Cambre John Vaghan Rukes Metcalff Pacok (me: them two again...I just love them!..) Dennys John Marlere for there quartre wages from Midsomere to Michelle'
HM 2:25
wages paid *quarterly*..yikes...a good thing there accommodation and food were probably all in...eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
>
> http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
>
> I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
>
> Carol
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 15:56:47
Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
>
> Â
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Â Â [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
>
> Â
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> Â Â [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:01:24
Poor Jane Colyns, paid yearly.....
'Cs to Jane Colyns for hire hoole yere wages ending at Michelmesse' HM 2:25
Crickey...fancy ekeing out your wages for a year...brings a while new meaning to payday..Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And not just debts...wages too...look at this....
>
> 'iiij li x s to Olyver Cambre John Vaghan Rukes Metcalff Pacok (me: them two again...I just love them!..) Dennys John Marlere for there quartre wages from Midsomere to Michelle'
> HM 2:25
>
> wages paid *quarterly*..yikes...a good thing there accommodation and food were probably all in...eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
> >
> > http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
> >
> > I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
'Cs to Jane Colyns for hire hoole yere wages ending at Michelmesse' HM 2:25
Crickey...fancy ekeing out your wages for a year...brings a while new meaning to payday..Eileen
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> And not just debts...wages too...look at this....
>
> 'iiij li x s to Olyver Cambre John Vaghan Rukes Metcalff Pacok (me: them two again...I just love them!..) Dennys John Marlere for there quartre wages from Midsomere to Michelle'
> HM 2:25
>
> wages paid *quarterly*..yikes...a good thing there accommodation and food were probably all in...eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just imagine how many Mulberry bags you could buy if you could delay payment until the Micklemus after the next Micklemus...I like it..I like it very much...
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article that may be of interest:
> >
> > http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
> >
> > I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and beginning of fall.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:04:21
I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>
> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> >
> > Judy
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top.  Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÂÂ
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >   [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>
> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> >
> > Judy
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top.  Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÂÂ
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > ÂÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >   [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:13:45
From: Judy Thomson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn
> one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either
> they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have
> worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but
> what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
Whether it's male or female, it's a tanga.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn
> one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either
> they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have
> worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but
> what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
Whether it's male or female, it's a tanga.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:16:18
From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
could be untied from a single bow.
On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
getting in the way too.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
could be untied from a single bow.
On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
getting in the way too.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:29:38
Carol wrote:
"If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time
when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay
his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article
that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this
purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and
beginning of fall."
Doug here:
Would Michaelmas have been (usually) after the harvest had been gathered in?
Basically a carry-over from when the harvest would have been divided between
the lord of the manor and his serfs? And when the economy moved from
basically barter to cash, settling up on Michaelmas continued?
If tithing was also done around this time as well, that might support that
idea.
The quarterly payments of wages, etc might also reflect the four seasons,
but that idea is a bit iffier.
Doug
"If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time
when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay
his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article
that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this
purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and
beginning of fall."
Doug here:
Would Michaelmas have been (usually) after the harvest had been gathered in?
Basically a carry-over from when the harvest would have been divided between
the lord of the manor and his serfs? And when the economy moved from
basically barter to cash, settling up on Michaelmas continued?
If tithing was also done around this time as well, that might support that
idea.
The quarterly payments of wages, etc might also reflect the four seasons,
but that idea is a bit iffier.
Doug
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:36:07
Frankly I cannot see this mode of knickers ever being popular with menfolks...God alone knows I do not want to appear sexist but honestly men are not the most patient of creatures are they...another thing and Im sorry I dont wish to cause offence ...but...they are not too good at multi-tasking.....I fear they would have got in a right old tiz trying to undo these laces and then do them up again. Not very good if you are standing in one of those drafty old latrines built on the edge of castles with the wind whipping up from the moors. Or the latrines Stow mentions in his wonderful book on London....where latrines for the use of the public were built in long rows...the mind actually boggles it really does. A picture springs to mind...a gentleman, his laces hopelessly entangled...turning to his neighbour.."Siree be so good as to untie my laces I appear to be in a knot"...Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> > brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> > occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> > wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> > mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
> ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
> before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
> could be untied from a single bow.
>
> On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
> on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
> getting in the way too.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> > brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> > occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> > wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> > mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
> ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
> before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
> could be untied from a single bow.
>
> On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
> on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
> getting in the way too.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:37:08
"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the close of the Middle Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks [snip] Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. [snip]
Carol responds:
Didn't they also wear silk stockings held up with garters? But, of course, nothing where we today would consider it necessary. I suppose the use of chamber pots had something to do with it. I'm reminded of a remark in JK Rowling's "Goblet of Fire" by an warlock named Archie, who thinks that wearing a woman's nightdress will make him look like a Muggle: "I like a nice breeze 'round my privates."
There. I've come down from the airless heights of Latin translation and landed with a thump on the ground.
Carol
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the close of the Middle Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks [snip] Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. [snip]
Carol responds:
Didn't they also wear silk stockings held up with garters? But, of course, nothing where we today would consider it necessary. I suppose the use of chamber pots had something to do with it. I'm reminded of a remark in JK Rowling's "Goblet of Fire" by an warlock named Archie, who thinks that wearing a woman's nightdress will make him look like a Muggle: "I like a nice breeze 'round my privates."
There. I've come down from the airless heights of Latin translation and landed with a thump on the ground.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:45:39
Claire wrote:
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September, which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except mid August.
>
Carol responds:
Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow).
Carol
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September, which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except mid August.
>
Carol responds:
Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow).
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:48:43
Yep. Just google "Villa Casale Sicily girls in bikinis" - there are very famous mosaics at the villa there and one of them shows 3 (or 4? It's been a few years since I was there) girls wearing bikinis.
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:49:56
Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece was just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over, and get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as the communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas about bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a good giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Frankly I cannot see this mode of knickers ever being popular with menfolks...God alone knows I do not want to appear sexist but honestly men are not the most patient of creatures are they...another thing and Im sorry I dont wish to cause offence ...but...they are not too good at multi-tasking.....I fear they would have got in a right old tiz trying to undo these laces and then do them up again. Not very good if you are standing in one of those drafty old latrines built on the edge of castles with the wind whipping up from the moors. Or the latrines Stow mentions in his wonderful book on London....where latrines for the use of the public were built in long rows...the mind actually boggles it really does. A picture springs to mind...a gentleman, his laces hopelessly entangled...turning to his neighbour.."Siree be so good as to untie my laces I appear to be in a knot"...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> > brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> > occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> > wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> > mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
> ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
> before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
> could be untied from a single bow.
>
> On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
> on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
> getting in the way too.
>
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:36 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Frankly I cannot see this mode of knickers ever being popular with menfolks...God alone knows I do not want to appear sexist but honestly men are not the most patient of creatures are they...another thing and Im sorry I dont wish to cause offence ...but...they are not too good at multi-tasking.....I fear they would have got in a right old tiz trying to undo these laces and then do them up again. Not very good if you are standing in one of those drafty old latrines built on the edge of castles with the wind whipping up from the moors. Or the latrines Stow mentions in his wonderful book on London....where latrines for the use of the public were built in long rows...the mind actually boggles it really does. A picture springs to mind...a gentleman, his laces hopelessly entangled...turning to his neighbour.."Siree be so good as to untie my laces I appear to be in a knot"...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:04 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have
> > brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention
> > occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he
> > wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never
> > mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> Good point - especially as they're not elasticated, so you probably couldn't
> ease them down over the hips without untying them first. Even in an age
> before buttons or zips, you would think a man's set would have a flap which
> could be untied from a single bow.
>
> On the one hand, having to untie your ties before peeing would only put men
> on an equal footing with women. On the other, men had to cope with hose
> getting in the way too.
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 16:52:01
If I recall...and I do still own the book but where is it?...it was thought these might have been for female athletes or dancers....being leather. Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Yep. Just google "Villa Casale Sicily girls in bikinis" - there are very famous mosaics at the villa there and one of them shows 3 (or 4? It's been a few years since I was there) girls wearing bikinis.
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Yep. Just google "Villa Casale Sicily girls in bikinis" - there are very famous mosaics at the villa there and one of them shows 3 (or 4? It's been a few years since I was there) girls wearing bikinis.
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:01:09
Any help from tree ring dating as to the general climate for that year?
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Claire wrote:
>
> > We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
> >
> > British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold
> and hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it
> being hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year
> except mid August.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an
> important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:45 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
> Claire wrote:
>
> > We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
> >
> > British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold
> and hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it
> being hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year
> except mid August.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an
> important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow).
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:02:52
Wow, those gals had barbells and everything....... So there really is not much new under the sun!
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
If I recall...and I do still own the book but where is it?...it was thought these might have been for female athletes or dancers....being leather. Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
> Yep. Just google "Villa Casale Sicily girls in bikinis" - there are very famous mosaics at the villa there and one of them shows 3 (or 4? It's been a few years since I was there) girls wearing bikinis.
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:52 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
If I recall...and I do still own the book but where is it?...it was thought these might have been for female athletes or dancers....being leather. Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
> Yep. Just google "Villa Casale Sicily girls in bikinis" - there are very famous mosaics at the villa there and one of them shows 3 (or 4? It's been a few years since I was there) girls wearing bikinis.
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 15:38
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> Â
> A leather 'bikini' type garment with side ties was found at Hadrians Wall....so this style dates way back to Roman and poss even earlier...When you think about it it could not be simpler could it..Did they stay up though....thank God for the discovery of elastic say I...eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> >
> >
> > Â
> > Â
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > Â Â mailto:-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:21:22
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> was the Little Ice Age.
I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? But the
Mediaeval Warm Period wasn't as warm as all that, anyway. And yes, they
probably got it over with before the sun was very high, assuming there to
have been sun. [Last year, during the first ten days of July Edinburgh had
just over one and a half *hours* of sunshine during the whole ten days - but
that was an unusually overcast year.]
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> was the Little Ice Age.
I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? But the
Mediaeval Warm Period wasn't as warm as all that, anyway. And yes, they
probably got it over with before the sun was very high, assuming there to
have been sun. [Last year, during the first ten days of July Edinburgh had
just over one and a half *hours* of sunshine during the whole ten days - but
that was an unusually overcast year.]
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:21:59
From: Pamela Bain
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece was
> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over, and
> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as the
> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas about
> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a good
> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right little
finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
would probably have required assistance with his string....
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece was
> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over, and
> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as the
> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas about
> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a good
> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right little
finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
would probably have required assistance with his string....
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:27:25
What made you think it was still the warm period and what is the time frame for the MWP?
So how warm was the MWP compared to now and the LIA period?
Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
On 28 May 2013, at 17:04, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> > was the Little Ice Age.
>
> I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? But the
> Mediaeval Warm Period wasn't as warm as all that, anyway. And yes, they
> probably got it over with before the sun was very high, assuming there to
> have been sun. [Last year, during the first ten days of July Edinburgh had
> just over one and a half *hours* of sunshine during the whole ten days - but
> that was an unusually overcast year.]
>
>
So how warm was the MWP compared to now and the LIA period?
Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
On 28 May 2013, at 17:04, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:45 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it
> > was the Little Ice Age.
>
> I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? But the
> Mediaeval Warm Period wasn't as warm as all that, anyway. And yes, they
> probably got it over with before the sun was very high, assuming there to
> have been sun. [Last year, during the first ten days of July Edinburgh had
> just over one and a half *hours* of sunshine during the whole ten days - but
> that was an unusually overcast year.]
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:30:22
Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you know he would need assistance?
On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece was
> > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over, and
> > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as the
> > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas about
> > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a good
> > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>
> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right little
> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>
>
On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Pamela Bain
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece was
> > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over, and
> > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as the
> > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas about
> > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a good
> > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>
> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right little
> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 17:38:20
Eileen said:
"...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?..."
Hi, Eileen, IMHO you're quite right. (And I think we're handling this question with sufficient decorum.) Here's a different article, where the bottoms are conceded as only "presumably" male. The original find included six undeniably female tops, some in tatters, and then this one pair of, er, whatever they really are:
http://www.ecouterre.com/medieval-lingerie-from-15th-century-castle-stuns-fashion-historians/
Cheers! Judy
And once again, apologies to all.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>
> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
"...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?..."
Hi, Eileen, IMHO you're quite right. (And I think we're handling this question with sufficient decorum.) Here's a different article, where the bottoms are conceded as only "presumably" male. The original find included six undeniably female tops, some in tatters, and then this one pair of, er, whatever they really are:
http://www.ecouterre.com/medieval-lingerie-from-15th-century-castle-stuns-fashion-historians/
Cheers! Judy
And once again, apologies to all.
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
--- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>
> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>
> Judy
> Â
> Loyaulte me lie
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Â
> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> >
> > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> >
> > Judy
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > Hi, Sandra,
> >
> > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
> >
> > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > close of the Middle
> > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > for ease as well as privacy.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> >
> > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > Paul
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> > ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:09:44
The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> know he would need assistance?
>
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> was
> > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> and
> > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> the
> > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> about
> > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> good
> > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> >
> > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> little
> > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> know he would need assistance?
>
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> was
> > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> and
> > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> the
> > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> about
> > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> good
> > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> >
> > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> little
> > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:14:15
Gotta ask Dr. Jo......she may have smashed it while she was bashing about in the grave site.
On May 28, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
>> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
>> know he would need assistance?
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
>>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
>> was
>>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
>> and
>>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
>> the
>>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
>> about
>>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
>> good
>>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>>>
>>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
>> little
>>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
>>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On May 28, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
>> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
>> know he would need assistance?
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
>>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
>> was
>>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
>> and
>>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
>> the
>>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
>> about
>>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
>> good
>>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>>>
>>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
>> little
>>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
>>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:14:26
Carol earlier:
> > Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it > was the Little Ice Age.
Claire responded:
> I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? [snip]
>
Carol again:
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Medieval Warm Period was the ninth to thirteenth centuries and the Little Ice Age was the fourteenth to nineteenth:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Carol
> > Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it > was the Little Ice Age.
Claire responded:
> I thought it was still the tail-end of the Mediaeval Warm Period? [snip]
>
Carol again:
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Medieval Warm Period was the ninth to thirteenth centuries and the Little Ice Age was the fourteenth to nineteenth:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:17:44
So is it fair to say the finger is still a bit of a mystery then?
On 28 May 2013, at 18:09, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
>> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
>> know he would need assistance?
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
>>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
>> was
>>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
>> and
>>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
>> the
>>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
>> about
>>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
>> good
>>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>>>
>>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
>> little
>>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
>>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On 28 May 2013, at 18:09, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
>> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
>> know he would need assistance?
>>
>>
>> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Pamela Bain
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
>>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
>> was
>>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
>> and
>>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
>> the
>>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
>> about
>>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
>> good
>>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
>>>
>>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
>> little
>>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
>>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:22:23
It's the last third of the year so roughly, as you say, from September. The three terms at Oxbridge are still Michaelmas, Hilary (Jan to Mar) and Trinity (summer)
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Carol wrote:
"If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time
when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay
his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article
that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this
purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and
beginning of fall."
Doug here:
Would Michaelmas have been (usually) after the harvest had been gathered in?
Basically a carry-over from when the harvest would have been divided between
the lord of the manor and his serfs? And when the economy moved from
basically barter to cash, settling up on Michaelmas continued?
If tithing was also done around this time as well, that might support that
idea.
The quarterly payments of wages, etc might also reflect the four seasons,
but that idea is a bit iffier.
Doug
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 27 May 2013, 17:31
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Carol wrote:
"If I recall correctly, even in Jane Austen's time, Michaelmas was the time
when rent and debts were due, so it wasn't just Richard who promised to pay
his debts then. It seems to have been standard procedure. Here's an article
that may be of interest:
http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/2011/09/29/of-marmots-and-monarchs-a-michaelmas-selection-from-the-tcp/
I'm not sure why they chose the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel for this
purpose except that, as the article states, it marked the end of summer and
beginning of fall."
Doug here:
Would Michaelmas have been (usually) after the harvest had been gathered in?
Basically a carry-over from when the harvest would have been divided between
the lord of the manor and his serfs? And when the economy moved from
basically barter to cash, settling up on Michaelmas continued?
If tithing was also done around this time as well, that might support that
idea.
The quarterly payments of wages, etc might also reflect the four seasons,
but that idea is a bit iffier.
Doug
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:30:04
Regarding the weather in 1485...I have no idea, because the website I sometimes visit has nothing to offer for our' year. Anyway, it's an interesting site, and mentions Buckingham and the bad weather for 1483. http://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
Sandra
Sandra
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:36:29
Well, not to me. But to each his own...
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> So is it fair to say the finger is still a bit of a mystery then?
>
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 18:09, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> > This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only
> one
> > of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal
> phalanx
> > is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his
> finger
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
> see
> > the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> > broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> > Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> > Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed
> because
> > the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...
> >wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where
> is
> >> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would
> you
> >> know he would need assistance?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Pamela Bain
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> >>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> >> was
> >>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> >> and
> >>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> >> the
> >>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> >> about
> >>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> >> good
> >>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> >>>
> >>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> >> little
> >>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> >>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> So is it fair to say the finger is still a bit of a mystery then?
>
>
> On 28 May 2013, at 18:09, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> > This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only
> one
> > of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal
> phalanx
> > is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his
> finger
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
> see
> > the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> > broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> > Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> > Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed
> because
> > the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...
> >wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where
> is
> >> it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would
> you
> >> know he would need assistance?
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From: Pamela Bain
> >>> To:
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> >>> Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> >> was
> >>>> just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> >> and
> >>>> get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> >> the
> >>>> communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> >> about
> >>>> bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> >> good
> >>>> giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> >>>
> >>> Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> >> little
> >>> finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> >>> would probably have required assistance with his string....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:41:35
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:44:01
I would agree with your last sentence Carol. Think of Anne Boleyn and the 'sixth finger'.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 18:41
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:54:25
Wouldn't a chopped' finger be fairly common in knightly circles? After all, they spent so much time beating the you-know-what out of each other, practicing from childhood and then in battle, that I can't imagine Richard was the only one to part company with something. I do not think he would be bothered about displaying that hand. It might even be regarded as an honourable or noble injury, proof of how ferociously he had entered into the spirit' of it all. If that is how it would be regarded, you can bet your bottom dollar the Tudor creeps wouldn't mention it. Far better to invent a withered arm.
Sandra
Sandra
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 18:57:52
Thanks for the references Carol. Evidently this was a popular style, and used by many painters for many royals.
On May 28, 2013, at 12:41 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
On May 28, 2013, at 12:41 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger. [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor). Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
Carol responds:
Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
/t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are not at all the same thing.
I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities convince me otherwise.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:25:03
Claire wrote:
> It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
Weds writes:
John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
> It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
Weds writes:
John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:35:46
As I said to each his own.
Yes, I'd like some contemporary evidence, but I have looked at 1000's of
x-rays in my training, & feel relatively confident in my observation of the
difference between the corresponding bones in Richard's 2 hands. If it
were only that the phalanges were missing, it wouldn't mean much.
And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
knights.
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
>
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
> see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under
> (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this
> your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the
> near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
>
> I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given
> it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face
> is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was
> younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
>
> As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of
> Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or
> gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
>
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
>
> and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
>
> http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
>
> Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
>
> http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
> /t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
>
> Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing
> phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant
> of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never
> heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other
> extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are
> not at all the same thing.
>
> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
> convince me otherwise.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Yes, I'd like some contemporary evidence, but I have looked at 1000's of
x-rays in my training, & feel relatively confident in my observation of the
difference between the corresponding bones in Richard's 2 hands. If it
were only that the phalanges were missing, it wouldn't mean much.
And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
knights.
A J
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
>
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
> see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under
> (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this
> your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the
> near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
>
> I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given
> it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face
> is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was
> younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
>
> As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of
> Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or
> gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
>
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
>
> and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
>
> http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
>
> Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
>
> http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
> /t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
>
> Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing
> phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant
> of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never
> heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other
> extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are
> not at all the same thing.
>
> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
> convince me otherwise.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:35:59
That is if Stanley ever had the sweating sickness to begin with...which I doubt...Eileen
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:38:05
Paul wrote:
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:38:07
Oh wow.....the smallest of things turned the world on its head. Fascinating
On May 28, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Claire wrote:
> It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
Weds writes:
John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:25 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Claire wrote:
> It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
Weds writes:
John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:40:23
Not to mention wood workers, mechanics, loggers, etc.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> As I said to each his own.
>
> Yes, I'd like some contemporary evidence, but I have looked at 1000's of
> x-rays in my training, & feel relatively confident in my observation of the
> difference between the corresponding bones in Richard's 2 hands. If it
> were only that the phalanges were missing, it wouldn't mean much.
>
> And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
> their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
> knights.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
>> [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
>>
>>> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
>>> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>>>
>>> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
>> see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under
>> (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
>> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
>> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
>> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this
>> your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the
>> near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
>>
>> I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given
>> it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face
>> is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was
>> younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
>>
>> As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of
>> Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or
>> gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
>>
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
>>
>> and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
>>
>> http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
>>
>> Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
>>
>> http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
>> /t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
>>
>> Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing
>> phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant
>> of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never
>> heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other
>> extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are
>> not at all the same thing.
>>
>> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
>> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
>> convince me otherwise.
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On May 28, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> As I said to each his own.
>
> Yes, I'd like some contemporary evidence, but I have looked at 1000's of
> x-rays in my training, & feel relatively confident in my observation of the
> difference between the corresponding bones in Richard's 2 hands. If it
> were only that the phalanges were missing, it wouldn't mean much.
>
> And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
> their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
> knights.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
>> [snip] These suggest to me that either part of his finger
>>
>>> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
>>> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>>>
>>> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not
>> see the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under
>> (the broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
>> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
>> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
>> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> Have you seen any articles mentioning shortened fingers, etc., or is this
>> your own observation? Certainly, there's no reference to his fingers in the
>> near-contemporary chronicles, not even Rous.
>>
>> I wouldn't regard the Broken Sword portrait as any kind of evidence given
>> it's late date and obvious distortions to match Tudor propaganda. (The face
>> is interesting, though, since the artist somehow knew that Richard was
>> younger than Tudor propaganda implied.)
>>
>> As for fiddling with a ring, all the variations on the Society of
>> Antiquities and National Portrait Galleries portraits show that pose or
>> gesture, but it's not unique to Richard. Here it is for Edward IV
>>
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg/220px-Edward_IV_Plantagenet.jpg
>>
>> and for a youngish Henry VIII (yes, that's him in Richard's hat:
>>
>> http://www.shafe.co.uk/art/tudor_01_-_introduction.asp
>>
>> Henry VII has a similar pose, only he's holding a flower (a *white* rose!):
>>
>> http://www.myartprints.com/kunst/english_school
>> /t31778_portrait_henry_vii_145_hi.jpg
>>
>> Anyway, I think it would be best not to treat Richard's supposed missing
>> phalange as anything more than speculation, especially given the penchant
>> of anti-Richards to seize on anything resembling deformity. I've never
>> heard it mentioned by any authority, not even Jo Appleby, or, at the other
>> extreme, the Tudor chroniclers. "Withered arm" and missing fingertip are
>> not at all the same thing.
>>
>> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
>> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
>> convince me otherwise.
>>
>> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:44:02
Wow.... And what about those pointy shoes men wore which had to be kept up my a chain at the knee.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Paul wrote:
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
On May 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
Paul wrote:
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
Words OT
2013-05-28 19:44:51
Sorry group, today seems to be my WOW day! I shall desist.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> Wow.... And what about those pointy shoes men wore which had to be kept up my a chain at the knee.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>
> Here's a few sources:
>
> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>
> Specific to medieval unders:
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On May 28, 2013, at 1:44 PM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...> wrote:
> Wow.... And what about those pointy shoes men wore which had to be kept up my a chain at the knee.
>
> On May 28, 2013, at 1:38 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Paul wrote:
>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>
> Here's a few sources:
>
> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>
> Specific to medieval unders:
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:55:05
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> What made you think it was still the warm period and what is the time
> frame for the MWP?
This chart -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png -
although having enlarged it I may have been wrong. 1485 *may* be just on
the cold side of the downturn, although really it's at a sort of average
point between the upswing and the downswing - the frost fairs etc were still
about 150 years away.
Also because it was a period when the ship rat Rattus rattus was common in
the UK, and they don't generally do well in cold weather. [Yes the only
substantial colony remaining in Britain is in the Hebrides - but right in
the Gulf Stream.]
> So how warm was the MWP compared to now and the LIA period?
The height of the MWP was supposedly still marginally cooler than the
present but I didn't and don't want to go into that because it's very
complicated and not relevant. Although global temperatures have risen,
Britain and especially Scotland has had three very hard winters and we're
just finished the coldest spring for nearly 35 years, so here it's probably
colder than the MWP, but I'm not willing to waste hours researching this.
> Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
No - I'm trusting Carol. Plus the battle must have finished quite early in
the day because there was time (sorry everybody) for Richard's body to be
paraded over a slow 20 miles.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> What made you think it was still the warm period and what is the time
> frame for the MWP?
This chart -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png -
although having enlarged it I may have been wrong. 1485 *may* be just on
the cold side of the downturn, although really it's at a sort of average
point between the upswing and the downswing - the frost fairs etc were still
about 150 years away.
Also because it was a period when the ship rat Rattus rattus was common in
the UK, and they don't generally do well in cold weather. [Yes the only
substantial colony remaining in Britain is in the Hebrides - but right in
the Gulf Stream.]
> So how warm was the MWP compared to now and the LIA period?
The height of the MWP was supposedly still marginally cooler than the
present but I didn't and don't want to go into that because it's very
complicated and not relevant. Although global temperatures have risen,
Britain and especially Scotland has had three very hard winters and we're
just finished the coldest spring for nearly 35 years, so here it's probably
colder than the MWP, but I'm not willing to waste hours researching this.
> Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
No - I'm trusting Carol. Plus the battle must have finished quite early in
the day because there was time (sorry everybody) for Richard's body to be
paraded over a slow 20 miles.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:56:19
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by
If you look at the NPG portrait you will see that his right little finger
appears to be only half length. If you look at his skeleton, most of his
fingers and thumbs have lost the tiny nail pahlanx but only his right little
finger is missing more than that. That could just mean that that bone was
lost in the grave but if so it's a big coincidence, and if you look closely
the remaining phalanx on that finger has a slightly wasted (and waisted)
look, as if it hadn't had much work to do for a long time, as you would
expect if the NPG portrait is accurate and he'd lost a bit of it.
> and where is it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso
The kink in his spine is all in his thorax - you can see by looking that it
would affect the rotation of his vertebrae at that point.
> and how would you know he would need assistance?
Because untying something on your hip requires a lot of upper body rotation.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:30 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by
If you look at the NPG portrait you will see that his right little finger
appears to be only half length. If you look at his skeleton, most of his
fingers and thumbs have lost the tiny nail pahlanx but only his right little
finger is missing more than that. That could just mean that that bone was
lost in the grave but if so it's a big coincidence, and if you look closely
the remaining phalanx on that finger has a slightly wasted (and waisted)
look, as if it hadn't had much work to do for a long time, as you would
expect if the NPG portrait is accurate and he'd lost a bit of it.
> and where is it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso
The kink in his spine is all in his thorax - you can see by looking that it
would affect the rotation of his vertebrae at that point.
> and how would you know he would need assistance?
Because untying something on your hip requires a lot of upper body rotation.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 19:56:46
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
> convince me otherwise.
Personally I would think it's a battle injury - which nobody at the time
would think at all odd or remarkable or a sign of anything other than that
he was a soldier.
However, we also have to remember that the hands in the portrait may not be
*his* hands. I read somewhere recently (in the last month or so) that it
was quite common for artists at that period to use the hands of a member of
their staff, or even their own hands in a mirror, to fill in the hands of
portraits so as not to detain the sitter longer than necessary. Certainly
the way his gold collar hangs in the NPG portrait suggests that his doublet
and collar have been draped over a flat cut-out, so it may be that only the
face is his own.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I doubt that Richard would have exposed his hands so prominently had they
> been at all disfigured. Just my opinion--until objective authorities
> convince me otherwise.
Personally I would think it's a battle injury - which nobody at the time
would think at all odd or remarkable or a sign of anything other than that
he was a soldier.
However, we also have to remember that the hands in the portrait may not be
*his* hands. I read somewhere recently (in the last month or so) that it
was quite common for artists at that period to use the hands of a member of
their staff, or even their own hands in a mirror, to fill in the hands of
portraits so as not to detain the sitter longer than necessary. Certainly
the way his gold collar hangs in the NPG portrait suggests that his doublet
and collar have been draped over a flat cut-out, so it may be that only the
face is his own.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:04:40
Ah, thank you, Weds. This is, I believe, the article I recall (i.e., no suggestion the bottoms being male braies). Whew! At least I haven't totally lost my mind in recent months....
:-) Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Paul wrote:
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
:-) Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Paul wrote:
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
Here's a few sources:
Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
Specific to medieval unders:
http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:20:16
On 28 May 2013, at 19:27, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by
>
> If you look at the NPG portrait you will see that his right little finger
> appears to be only half length. If you look at his skeleton, most of his
> fingers and thumbs have lost the tiny nail pahlanx but only his right little
> finger is missing more than that. That could just mean that that bone was
> lost in the grave but if so it's a big coincidence, and if you look closely
> the remaining phalanx on that finger has a slightly wasted (and waisted)
> look, as if it hadn't had much work to do for a long time, as you would
> expect if the NPG portrait is accurate and he'd lost a bit of it.
>
The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who substantiated the loss.
>
> > and where is it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso
>
> The kink in his spine is all in his thorax - you can see by looking that it
> would affect the rotation of his vertebrae at that point.
>
Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
>
> > and how would you know he would need assistance?
>
> Because untying something on your hip requires a lot of upper body rotation.
>
Again, how much mobility did he actually have, it is all speculative and you have no evidence to support a theory.
>
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by
>
> If you look at the NPG portrait you will see that his right little finger
> appears to be only half length. If you look at his skeleton, most of his
> fingers and thumbs have lost the tiny nail pahlanx but only his right little
> finger is missing more than that. That could just mean that that bone was
> lost in the grave but if so it's a big coincidence, and if you look closely
> the remaining phalanx on that finger has a slightly wasted (and waisted)
> look, as if it hadn't had much work to do for a long time, as you would
> expect if the NPG portrait is accurate and he'd lost a bit of it.
>
The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who substantiated the loss.
>
> > and where is it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso
>
> The kink in his spine is all in his thorax - you can see by looking that it
> would affect the rotation of his vertebrae at that point.
>
Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
>
> > and how would you know he would need assistance?
>
> Because untying something on your hip requires a lot of upper body rotation.
>
Again, how much mobility did he actually have, it is all speculative and you have no evidence to support a theory.
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:22:23
Not seen it but will put it on order as I have a Blu Ray player than
plays all regions with a bit of fiddling!
Hope all the bits are in it, perhaps even the Buckingham going to
execution scene which I've heard on audio and seen the stills.
Seeing it in the glorious Technicolour it was originally in will be
wonderful.
Paul
On 28/05/2013 13:31, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> On the subject of Olivier's film - and not, I hasten to add, because of your mention of Dorset's doublet! - have you had chance to see the new Criterion restoration that's just been released on blu-ray? The stills I've seen look ravishing - but, annoyingly, the edition is region-locked and I can't find any information anywhere about a UK release...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
> of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
> time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
> worn too!
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
>> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>> Eileen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>>
>>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
plays all regions with a bit of fiddling!
Hope all the bits are in it, perhaps even the Buckingham going to
execution scene which I've heard on audio and seen the stills.
Seeing it in the glorious Technicolour it was originally in will be
wonderful.
Paul
On 28/05/2013 13:31, Jonathan Evans wrote:
> Hi Paul
>
> On the subject of Olivier's film - and not, I hasten to add, because of your mention of Dorset's doublet! - have you had chance to see the new Criterion restoration that's just been released on blu-ray? The stills I've seen look ravishing - but, annoyingly, the edition is region-locked and I can't find any information anywhere about a UK release...
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 9:51
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
> of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
> time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
> worn too!
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
>> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>> Eileen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>>
>>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:28:27
AJ wrote:
> And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
> their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
> knights.
Weds writes:
It's an occupational hazard for real cowboys, too. Not the Hollywood variety, the sort who rope for a living -- though they're a vanishing breed. You lose a couple of digits when you're 90 miles from any city, swear, wrap it up and keep going. And have a story to tell afterward. :)
> And where I live I've lost track of the number of farmers missing parts of
> their fingers. It's an occupational hazard, as it may have been for
> knights.
Weds writes:
It's an occupational hazard for real cowboys, too. Not the Hollywood variety, the sort who rope for a living -- though they're a vanishing breed. You lose a couple of digits when you're 90 miles from any city, swear, wrap it up and keep going. And have a story to tell afterward. :)
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:29:09
A triangular piece attached at the front which you unbutton and open
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
How to tie your medieval underwear all together
2013-05-28 20:36:56
For those confused about how the tyings-up of the male underwear of the period worked, here's an explanation. Just go down to the heading, "About our Braies and Chauses" and read from there.
http://www.revivalclothing.com/silkmedievalchauses.aspx
~Weds
http://www.revivalclothing.com/silkmedievalchauses.aspx
~Weds
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 20:54:40
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who
> substantiated the loss.
In the sense that we don't know for absolute certain, nobody. But AJ's
opinion as a doctor who has seen many similar injuries (and the skeletal
results) is enough to confirm that it's very likely. That's why I said he
"seems to have" lost it.
> Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence
> to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although if
you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who
> substantiated the loss.
In the sense that we don't know for absolute certain, nobody. But AJ's
opinion as a doctor who has seen many similar injuries (and the skeletal
results) is enough to confirm that it's very likely. That's why I said he
"seems to have" lost it.
> Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence
> to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although if
you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:12:33
On 28 May 2013, at 20:46, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who
> > substantiated the loss.
>
> In the sense that we don't know for absolute certain, nobody. But AJ's
> opinion as a doctor who has seen many similar injuries (and the skeletal
> results) is enough to confirm that it's very likely. That's why I said he
> "seems to have" lost it.
>
With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be confusing the issue here now?
>
> > Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence
> > to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
>
> Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although if
> you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
> with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
>
>
So on your theory he had limited mobility, then how does this fit in with someone that is suited and booted, on a horse and fighting a battle with upper body limitations? If someone was in that bad a shape then he would have been better off leading from the rear as a commander of his forces.
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:20 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > The picture does not answer the question I asked about where/how and who
> > substantiated the loss.
>
> In the sense that we don't know for absolute certain, nobody. But AJ's
> opinion as a doctor who has seen many similar injuries (and the skeletal
> results) is enough to confirm that it's very likely. That's why I said he
> "seems to have" lost it.
>
With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be confusing the issue here now?
>
> > Isn't this just speculative on your part and you have no primary evidence
> > to support to any extent what % of mobility existed?
>
> Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although if
> you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
> with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
>
>
So on your theory he had limited mobility, then how does this fit in with someone that is suited and booted, on a horse and fighting a battle with upper body limitations? If someone was in that bad a shape then he would have been better off leading from the rear as a commander of his forces.
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:13:50
Exactly, Paul. :-)
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A triangular piece attached at the front which you unbutton and open
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A triangular piece attached at the front which you unbutton and open
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:20:34
Neil wrote:
> > Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
Claire responded:
> No - I'm trusting Carol. Plus the battle must have finished quite early in the day because there was time (sorry everybody) for Richard's body to be paraded over a slow 20 miles.
>
Carol responds:
For the record, all I said was "Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow)."
I didn't give any specifics or state that I know "when the battle was fought from beginning to end"! I don't think we "know" even now with the new archaeological discoveries exactly what happened, and the accounts of the battle are vague and conflicting.
Carol
Carol
> > Do you actually know when the battle was fought from beginning to end?
Claire responded:
> No - I'm trusting Carol. Plus the battle must have finished quite early in the day because there was time (sorry everybody) for Richard's body to be paraded over a slow 20 miles.
>
Carol responds:
For the record, all I said was "Then, again, the battle was probably fought in the early morning and it was the Little Ice Age. No chronicler mentions the weather, which was an important factor in other battles, such as Barnet (fog) and Towton (snow)."
I didn't give any specifics or state that I know "when the battle was fought from beginning to end"! I don't think we "know" even now with the new archaeological discoveries exactly what happened, and the accounts of the battle are vague and conflicting.
Carol
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:35:33
From: Claire M Jordan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although
> if
you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
I should specify I'm not suggesting he would have had any significant
mobility issues. Most of your upper body mobility comes from the lumbar
region, the lower back, and his lower back seems to have been completely
normal - the 3D reconstruction which Leicester Uni did shows everything from
the waist down as unaffected. But turning right round and tying a cord on
your own hip is one of the few actions which requires you to screw your
actual ribcage around.
But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although
> if
you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
I should specify I'm not suggesting he would have had any significant
mobility issues. Most of your upper body mobility comes from the lumbar
region, the lower back, and his lower back seems to have been completely
normal - the 3D reconstruction which Leicester Uni did shows everything from
the waist down as unaffected. But turning right round and tying a cord on
your own hip is one of the few actions which requires you to screw your
actual ribcage around.
But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:46:14
On 28 May 2013, at 21:24, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although
> > if
> you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
> with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
>
> I should specify I'm not suggesting he would have had any significant
> mobility issues. Most of your upper body mobility comes from the lumbar
> region, the lower back, and his lower back seems to have been completely
> normal - the 3D reconstruction which Leicester Uni did shows everything from
> the waist down as unaffected. But turning right round and tying a cord on
> your own hip is one of the few actions which requires you to screw your
> actual ribcage around.
>
>
Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness which is basically saying he would have had a mobility issue, now you are suggesting that he didn't have any mobility issues at all worth talking about. I don't see how anyone can make any concrete statements on someone's mobility, pain thresholds, physical well being long after the event.
> But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
> anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
> Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
>
>
> From: Claire M Jordan
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 8:46 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Speculative, yes, but based on knowing the way vertebrae move - although
> > if
> you feel it's really important I'll go on the scoliosis forum and discuss it
> with the people there, to make sure I'm right.
>
> I should specify I'm not suggesting he would have had any significant
> mobility issues. Most of your upper body mobility comes from the lumbar
> region, the lower back, and his lower back seems to have been completely
> normal - the 3D reconstruction which Leicester Uni did shows everything from
> the waist down as unaffected. But turning right round and tying a cord on
> your own hip is one of the few actions which requires you to screw your
> actual ribcage around.
>
>
Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness which is basically saying he would have had a mobility issue, now you are suggesting that he didn't have any mobility issues at all worth talking about. I don't see how anyone can make any concrete statements on someone's mobility, pain thresholds, physical well being long after the event.
> But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
> anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
> Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:58:41
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the
> claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't
> actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be
> confusing the issue here now?
I stand the same place AJ stands - I think it's very likely, because of the
appearance of his hands in the portraits and because of the shape of the
surviving bone from that finger, but I'm not 100% certain - in part because
we can't be 100% certain that those are *his* hands in the portrait. If I
had to give a percentage I'd say I was about 83% certain he'd lost part of
that finger. [But I don't think I'm ever 100% certain of *anything*: there
are always other possibilities, even if some of them are far-fetched.]
I agree with Carol that if he'd had a congenital deformity somebody would
probably have remarked on it - but losing a few optional extremities must
have been very common among the military classes, since I don't think
basket-hilt swords had been invented yet (if they had been they weren't
common - I've never seen one that old).
> So on your theory he had limited mobility, then how does this fit in with
> someone that is suited and booted, on a horse and fighting a battle with
> upper body limitations? If someone was in that bad a shape then he would
> have been better off leading from the rear as a commander of his forces.
Ah, we've cross-posted - I'd already posted a PS that I was only thinking
about the mobility of his thorax. Most of your upper body mobility is in
the lumbar region. There are only a few actions where you really have to
slew your thoracic spine around - in fact ballet and bringing both hands to
bear to tie a string on your hip are the only ones I can think of.
And probably having limited thoracic mobility would have no effect on
Richard's performance as a soldier *at all*, the reason being, you can't
bend your thoracic spine when you're wearing plate armour anyway.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the
> claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't
> actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be
> confusing the issue here now?
I stand the same place AJ stands - I think it's very likely, because of the
appearance of his hands in the portraits and because of the shape of the
surviving bone from that finger, but I'm not 100% certain - in part because
we can't be 100% certain that those are *his* hands in the portrait. If I
had to give a percentage I'd say I was about 83% certain he'd lost part of
that finger. [But I don't think I'm ever 100% certain of *anything*: there
are always other possibilities, even if some of them are far-fetched.]
I agree with Carol that if he'd had a congenital deformity somebody would
probably have remarked on it - but losing a few optional extremities must
have been very common among the military classes, since I don't think
basket-hilt swords had been invented yet (if they had been they weren't
common - I've never seen one that old).
> So on your theory he had limited mobility, then how does this fit in with
> someone that is suited and booted, on a horse and fighting a battle with
> upper body limitations? If someone was in that bad a shape then he would
> have been better off leading from the rear as a commander of his forces.
Ah, we've cross-posted - I'd already posted a PS that I was only thinking
about the mobility of his thorax. Most of your upper body mobility is in
the lumbar region. There are only a few actions where you really have to
slew your thoracic spine around - in fact ballet and bringing both hands to
bear to tie a string on your hip are the only ones I can think of.
And probably having limited thoracic mobility would have no effect on
Richard's performance as a soldier *at all*, the reason being, you can't
bend your thoracic spine when you're wearing plate armour anyway.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 21:59:07
Wednesday wrote:
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
Carol adds:
The article says that more details can be found in the August 2012 issue of the BBC History magazine if anyone has access to that. Since DNA stays on clothing for a long time and these perhaps weren't washed quite as often as modern clothing, it would be easy enough to determine whether it belonged to a man or a woman. But the mere fact (aside from the looks of the garment, which resembles a woman's bikini bottom and does not at all resemble men's braies from the period) that the bottoms were found with bras rather suggests that they belonged to a woman.
Oh, the things we learn on this forum!
Carol
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
Carol adds:
The article says that more details can be found in the August 2012 issue of the BBC History magazine if anyone has access to that. Since DNA stays on clothing for a long time and these perhaps weren't washed quite as often as modern clothing, it would be easy enough to determine whether it belonged to a man or a woman. But the mere fact (aside from the looks of the garment, which resembles a woman's bikini bottom and does not at all resemble men's braies from the period) that the bottoms were found with bras rather suggests that they belonged to a woman.
Oh, the things we learn on this forum!
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 22:00:26
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> I didn't give any specifics or state that I know "when the battle was
> fought from beginning to end"! I don't think we "know" even now with the
> new archaeological discoveries exactly what happened, and the accounts of
> the battle are vague and conflicting.
Indeed. But it's about 15 miles from Bosworth to Leicester, and the roads
weren't great, and everybody who'd taken part in the battle must have been
pretty tired. If you'll allow two assumptions - that the party which
conveyed Richard's body included footsoldiers, and that they reached
Leicester before dark - they're unlikely to have been going faster than 3mph
so it would have taken at least five hours to reach Leicester, so to get
there before dark they'd have to have started by around 3pm
[If you really want me to find out *exactly* when dark was, I can. But here
we are in Scotland at 10pm - 9pm if you factor out British Summer Time - and
it's getting dark here, a month before Midsummer. It gets dark earlier in
England than Scotland during the summer, so I reckon that ten weeks after
Midsummer, in England, getting dark at 8pm is a reasonable guess.]
It seems unlikely they'd have started out for Leicester immediately after
Richard was killed - there must have been at least some toing-and-froing
afterwards - so it's reasonable to assume that the battle was over by about
1pm *if* it's the case that Rcihard's body reached Leicester before dark.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:20 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> I didn't give any specifics or state that I know "when the battle was
> fought from beginning to end"! I don't think we "know" even now with the
> new archaeological discoveries exactly what happened, and the accounts of
> the battle are vague and conflicting.
Indeed. But it's about 15 miles from Bosworth to Leicester, and the roads
weren't great, and everybody who'd taken part in the battle must have been
pretty tired. If you'll allow two assumptions - that the party which
conveyed Richard's body included footsoldiers, and that they reached
Leicester before dark - they're unlikely to have been going faster than 3mph
so it would have taken at least five hours to reach Leicester, so to get
there before dark they'd have to have started by around 3pm
[If you really want me to find out *exactly* when dark was, I can. But here
we are in Scotland at 10pm - 9pm if you factor out British Summer Time - and
it's getting dark here, a month before Midsummer. It gets dark earlier in
England than Scotland during the summer, so I reckon that ten weeks after
Midsummer, in England, getting dark at 8pm is a reasonable guess.]
It seems unlikely they'd have started out for Leicester immediately after
Richard was killed - there must have been at least some toing-and-froing
afterwards - so it's reasonable to assume that the battle was over by about
1pm *if* it's the case that Rcihard's body reached Leicester before dark.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 22:06:22
What? We were taken to see that in the 3rd year at school (aged13 for those of you in America). I don't remember that "at all" but frankly we all thought Romeo was a drip and spent the whole movie swooning over Michael York's Tybalt.
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A triangular piece attached at the front which you unbutton and open
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
A triangular piece attached at the front which you unbutton and open
when needed, as per Zefferelli's Romeo movie?
Paul
On 28/05/2013 16:04, EileenB wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>> Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
>>
>> At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
>>
>> Judy
>> Â
>> Loyaulte me lie
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>
>> Â
>> Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
>>
>> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
>>> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>>>
>>> Judy
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
>>> To: "" <>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
>>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Hi, Sandra,
>>>
>>> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. ÃÂ Here's one of the articles with photos:
>>>
>>> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>>>
>>> Judy
>>>
>>> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)ÃÂ
>>>
>>> ÃÂ
>>> ÃÂ
>>> Loyaulte me lie
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>>
>>> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
>>> close of the Middle
>>> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
>>> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
>>> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
>>> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
>>> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
>>> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
>>> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
>>> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
>>> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
>>> for ease as well as privacy.
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Paul Trevor Bale
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
>>> To:
>>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>>
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>> ÃÂ ÃÂ [email protected]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 22:14:59
Claire wrote:
> But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
> anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
> Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
Weds writes:
As a fantasy writer, I believe that research must never be allowed to interfere with anyone's fantasies about Dickon. Or Francis, big brother Edward, or anyone else.
Further to this, anything Dickon ties can be untied by someone else. Or vice versa. So please feel free to carry on.
(If I had any reservations at all on this score, it would be the setting for such malfunctions. A garderobe is, after all, such an unromantic place, regardless it's traditional for some um...specialized characters in specialized fiction and past/current reality...but some get arrested for it.)
Shutting up now.
> But it looks like the tanga thing with the side-ties is female apparel
> anyway, according to what Wednesday found, so we can't fantasise about
> Richard having a wardrobe malfunction....
Weds writes:
As a fantasy writer, I believe that research must never be allowed to interfere with anyone's fantasies about Dickon. Or Francis, big brother Edward, or anyone else.
Further to this, anything Dickon ties can be untied by someone else. Or vice versa. So please feel free to carry on.
(If I had any reservations at all on this score, it would be the setting for such malfunctions. A garderobe is, after all, such an unromantic place, regardless it's traditional for some um...specialized characters in specialized fiction and past/current reality...but some get arrested for it.)
Shutting up now.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 22:28:31
On 28 May 2013, at 21:41, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the
> > claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't
> > actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be
> > confusing the issue here now?
>
> I stand the same place AJ stands - I think it's very likely, because of the
> appearance of his hands in the portraits and because of the shape of the
> surviving bone from that finger, but I'm not 100% certain - in part because
> we can't be 100% certain that those are *his* hands in the portrait. If I
> had to give a percentage I'd say I was about 83% certain he'd lost part of
> that finger. [But I don't think I'm ever 100% certain of *anything*: there
> are always other possibilities, even if some of them are far-fetched.]
>
but as you say in another post and here again that it was feasible that they used other peoples hands for portraits sometimes, which in reality makes a mockery of pursuing this discussion any further? If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all. I can't remember the last post where you have actually said anything that has been spot on for anything, everything you say is always speculative and has no grounding for being factual which doesn't help the cause that most people are working towards.
>
>
>
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > With regards to my question you said that the NPG portrait supported the
> > claim that there was a loss, now you seem to be saying that we don't
> > actually know now, so where do you stand on this as you seem to be
> > confusing the issue here now?
>
> I stand the same place AJ stands - I think it's very likely, because of the
> appearance of his hands in the portraits and because of the shape of the
> surviving bone from that finger, but I'm not 100% certain - in part because
> we can't be 100% certain that those are *his* hands in the portrait. If I
> had to give a percentage I'd say I was about 83% certain he'd lost part of
> that finger. [But I don't think I'm ever 100% certain of *anything*: there
> are always other possibilities, even if some of them are far-fetched.]
>
but as you say in another post and here again that it was feasible that they used other peoples hands for portraits sometimes, which in reality makes a mockery of pursuing this discussion any further? If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all. I can't remember the last post where you have actually said anything that has been spot on for anything, everything you say is always speculative and has no grounding for being factual which doesn't help the cause that most people are working towards.
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-28 22:47:12
liz williams wrote:
>
> What?   We were taken to see that in the 3rd year at school (aged13 for those of you in America). I don't remember that "at all" but frankly we all thought Romeo was a drip and spent the whole movie swooning over Michael York's Tybalt.
Carol responds:
I spent the whole time (well, the last half of the film) wondering why they made Juliet wear an ugly dress that made her look pregnant--or fat:
http://thebestpictureproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/1968romeojuliet3.jpg
Such pretty children cast for the parts, but such dreadful costume design, at least for Juliet. And I had stood in a line that extended around the block to watch that film.
But I should watch it again, ignoring that dress, and see if it meets my expectations now better than it did then.
Carol
>
> What?   We were taken to see that in the 3rd year at school (aged13 for those of you in America). I don't remember that "at all" but frankly we all thought Romeo was a drip and spent the whole movie swooning over Michael York's Tybalt.
Carol responds:
I spent the whole time (well, the last half of the film) wondering why they made Juliet wear an ugly dress that made her look pregnant--or fat:
http://thebestpictureproject.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/1968romeojuliet3.jpg
Such pretty children cast for the parts, but such dreadful costume design, at least for Juliet. And I had stood in a line that extended around the block to watch that film.
But I should watch it again, ignoring that dress, and see if it meets my expectations now better than it did then.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 05:39:56
He was the book giver, me thinks!
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 9:05 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength
> > of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure
> > that's what it means.......
>
> Yes. Stella's daughter may be mistaken - she's studied Latin but she's not
> an expert. The expert on Latin whom Stella knows wasn't available today, so
> her opinion is still to come - and she may or may not be better than
> Eileen's expert.
>
> But the grammatical structure of Latin and Italian is so wildly different
> from that of English that I thought it would be useful to get the opinion of
> a Latin scholar who was also an Italian speaker, and would be alert to
> nuances that an English-speaker might miss.
>
> The painting you're thinking of, with the guy in the very short doublet and
> indecently tight tights, is probably the Jean de Warin one - but I've never
> known whether Jean de Warin is the artist, the owner or one of the people in
> the picture.
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2013, at 9:05 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 1:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> > I was referring to the translation of "vitibus debilis" meaning "strength
> > of a cripple".... Maybe we should run it by a few scholars to make sure
> > that's what it means.......
>
> Yes. Stella's daughter may be mistaken - she's studied Latin but she's not
> an expert. The expert on Latin whom Stella knows wasn't available today, so
> her opinion is still to come - and she may or may not be better than
> Eileen's expert.
>
> But the grammatical structure of Latin and Italian is so wildly different
> from that of English that I thought it would be useful to get the opinion of
> a Latin scholar who was also an Italian speaker, and would be alert to
> nuances that an English-speaker might miss.
>
> The painting you're thinking of, with the guy in the very short doublet and
> indecently tight tights, is probably the Jean de Warin one - but I've never
> known whether Jean de Warin is the artist, the owner or one of the people in
> the picture.
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 05:42:35
Just skin underneath those, I think! You don't have to wear boxers under those hose!
The omen might had corsets. Or we're they later inventions?
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
> of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
> time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
> worn too!
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
>> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>> Eileen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>>
>>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
The omen might had corsets. Or we're they later inventions?
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 4:51 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> Anyone dare mentioning Olivier's film in which Dorset wore the shortest
> of doublets? i remember reading that they caused immense shock at the
> time because of what they revealed, though I imagine cod pieces were
> worn too!
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> On 27/05/2013 22:49, SandraMachin wrote:
>> Really short doublets, I'm sure. As for the Spanish riding boots. Not too weak at the knees, I trust. I wonder who got the cast-offs?
>>
>> From: EileenB
>> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 10:38 PM
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>> Well Weds...it all nice...but the funny thing is...the folks that made the clothes didnt seem to get an immediate payment...well not even a late payment...it was more on the lines of a 'promise' to pay whomsoever next Micklemas or the one after that...Thats the type of shopping I like...wear now...pay some time later...maybe...eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>>> Eileen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tomorrow Im going to post about happier times in Richard's life..his clothing...Eileen
>>> Ooooh, goodie! I for one want to know how short were those doublets he wore to court, and what would he have worn while knocking about at Middleham?
>>>
>>> ::happily picturing Spanish riding boots::
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 05:49:06
Thanks Judy!
I am having hard time thinking of Cicely Neville wearing these things..........But wear she did!
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am having hard time thinking of Cicely Neville wearing these things..........But wear she did!
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 10:35 AM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
>
> Hi, Sandra,
>
> Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Here's one of the articles with photos:
>
> http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
>
> Judy
>
> (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> close of the Middle
> Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> for ease as well as privacy.
>
> Sandra
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> Paul
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 05:52:10
Maybe they just made a hole in those bikini thingies......
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
> >
> > At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi, Sandra,
> > >
> > > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> > >
> > > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > >
> > > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > > close of the Middle
> > > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > > for ease as well as privacy.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > Â Â [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On May 28, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> I dont want to get down to the nitty gritty here....Lord knows I have brought the tone of this forum down on too many to mention occasions...BUT...would these be suitable for a bloke?...what when he wanted to pee? He would have to undo one side and then.....oh never mind....forget I ever mentioned it...Eileen
>
> --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
> >
> > Especially since it offers no male-specific "advantage" in its design. :-)
> >
> > At least the top is unquestionably feminine....
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:42 AM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmmmm that garment could have been unisex....eileen
> >
> > --- In , Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Whoops! Correction - the caption says men's under pants. I could've sworn one of the pieces I saw about a year ago said "women's" - so either they've been reassessed or people still can't believe women might have worn SOMETHING. To be honest, these don't look like routine braies...but what the heck. Sorry about that, everyone!
> > >
> > > Judy
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@>
> > > To: "" <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:24 AM
> > > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Hi, Sandra,
> > >
> > > Some 15th C. women's under garments were discovered in a castle. The amazing thing is how much they resemble modern items: a simple, "bikini" style bottom with ties, and a bra-like top. Â Here's one of the articles with photos:
> > >
> > > http://www.medievalnews.net/2012/07/medieval-underwear-found-in-austrian-castle/
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > > (Don't worry, gentlemen - nothing embarrassing :-)Â
> > >
> > > Â
> > > Â
> > > Loyaulte me lie
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:25 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > >
> > > According to The History of Underclothes by Willett and Cunnington, by the
> > > close of the Middle
> > > Ages (in this instance up to 1485) men wore short
> > > 'braies' not unlike today's bathing trunks - cloth of course, not anything
> > > stretchy! By the illustration they were more like old-fashioned Y-fronts,
> > > loose-ish, not clinging, reaching from the waist to just below the 'floppy
> > > bits', which were contained in a laced pouch instead of the Y opening. Women
> > > do not appear to have worn anything similar underneath at this period. I
> > > suppose their rich, trained gowns hid all that should be hidden. Well, for
> > > the nobility and gentry anyway. If they were lower in the pecking order, and
> > > working in the fields or wherever, they tied their skirts between their legs
> > > for ease as well as privacy.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Trevor Bale
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:51 AM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
> > > shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > > Â Â [email protected]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 08:45:53
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness
Ah, no, you misread me, I said he would probably have had some stiffness in
his upper *torso*. You upper body is everything above the pelvis, but your
upper torso is between your waist and shoulders - basically your ribcage and
an inch or two of spine just below it. Nearly all of your upper body
mobility lies in your *lower* torso, that is, in your lumbar spine and
pelvis, which seems to have been completely unafffected, judging from the
reconstruction Leicester did.
Try keeping your belly-button facing forwards - that is, not involving your
lower back at all - and then try to rotate your upper body using only the
movement in your ribcage, and you'll see it's not much at the best of times.
And how much mobility you have or don't have in your ribcage area is
irrelevant if you're fighting in plate mail, because the
back-and-breastplate holds everything between the waist and the shoulders
rigid anyway.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness
Ah, no, you misread me, I said he would probably have had some stiffness in
his upper *torso*. You upper body is everything above the pelvis, but your
upper torso is between your waist and shoulders - basically your ribcage and
an inch or two of spine just below it. Nearly all of your upper body
mobility lies in your *lower* torso, that is, in your lumbar spine and
pelvis, which seems to have been completely unafffected, judging from the
reconstruction Leicester did.
Try keeping your belly-button facing forwards - that is, not involving your
lower back at all - and then try to rotate your upper body using only the
movement in your ribcage, and you'll see it's not much at the best of times.
And how much mobility you have or don't have in your ribcage area is
irrelevant if you're fighting in plate mail, because the
back-and-breastplate holds everything between the waist and the shoulders
rigid anyway.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 08:46:08
From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Further to this, anything Dickon ties can be untied by someone else. Or
> vice versa. So please feel free to carry on.
Except that it seems that imagining Richard falling out of those tanga
things would entail his wearing *female* underwear, which may be a fantasy
too far....
> (If I had any reservations at all on this score, it would be the setting
> for such malfunctions. A garderobe is, after all, such an unromantic
> place,
And if you slipped and fell down it, it's a very long way down.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Further to this, anything Dickon ties can be untied by someone else. Or
> vice versa. So please feel free to carry on.
Except that it seems that imagining Richard falling out of those tanga
things would entail his wearing *female* underwear, which may be a fantasy
too far....
> (If I had any reservations at all on this score, it would be the setting
> for such malfunctions. A garderobe is, after all, such an unromantic
> place,
And if you slipped and fell down it, it's a very long way down.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 08:46:21
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all.
If you have a good enough imagination, nobody can be 100% sure about
*anything*, except their own existence, which you can't prove to anybody
else.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all.
If you have a good enough imagination, nobody can be 100% sure about
*anything*, except their own existence, which you can't prove to anybody
else.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 08:46:32
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all.
> I can't remember the last post where you have actually said anything that
> has been spot on for anything, everything you say is always speculative
> and has no grounding for being factual which doesn't help the cause that
> most people are working towards.
Btw, if we can only post about things we're 100% sure of, why are we
discussing what happened to the two boys, at all? Or any of it, really -
there's not much about Richard that we can be *100%* sure of. It's all
about competing probabilities.
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> If you can't be 100% about something then it doesn't really count at all.
> I can't remember the last post where you have actually said anything that
> has been spot on for anything, everything you say is always speculative
> and has no grounding for being factual which doesn't help the cause that
> most people are working towards.
Btw, if we can only post about things we're 100% sure of, why are we
discussing what happened to the two boys, at all? Or any of it, really -
there's not much about Richard that we can be *100%* sure of. It's all
about competing probabilities.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 09:08:30
On 28 May 2013, at 22:15, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness
>
> Ah, no, you misread me, I said he would probably have had some stiffness in
> his upper *torso*. You upper body is everything above the pelvis, but your
> upper torso is between your waist and shoulders - basically your ribcage and
> an inch or two of spine just below it. Nearly all of your upper body
> mobility lies in your *lower* torso, that is, in your lumbar spine and
> pelvis, which seems to have been completely unafffected, judging from the
> reconstruction Leicester did.
>
>
This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs and opinions which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the only option. You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as you have done with me in the past.
This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow members then we can all get along more smoothly.
>
>
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Earlier you said he had upper body stiffness
>
> Ah, no, you misread me, I said he would probably have had some stiffness in
> his upper *torso*. You upper body is everything above the pelvis, but your
> upper torso is between your waist and shoulders - basically your ribcage and
> an inch or two of spine just below it. Nearly all of your upper body
> mobility lies in your *lower* torso, that is, in your lumbar spine and
> pelvis, which seems to have been completely unafffected, judging from the
> reconstruction Leicester did.
>
>
This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs and opinions which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the only option. You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as you have done with me in the past.
This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow members then we can all get along more smoothly.
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 10:24:56
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use
> the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact
Honestly, I don't know how you make that one out. "Probably" means "This
may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that
it's the case".
> when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you
> had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
Only in that "probably" means "I think it's more than 50% likely" and
"might" can be applied to any probability greater than zero.
> The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs
> and opinions
Aren't everybody's? We're all expressing what we think is likely.
Everybody's talking about their own theories about Richard's spine or what
Morton was up to or what happened to the missing boys.
> which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to
> debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening
> objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the
> only option.
If you're talking about the argument about business models, that was because
you hadn't understood what I was saying and kept on replying as if I'd said
something completely different, so I kept on re-stating it in the hopes that
you'd eventually calm down and listen instead of raging at me about things I
hadn't said. I was trying to explain to you how the society could make a
lot more money with very little effort, but you kept on replying as if I was
trying to make the society lose out, so of course I had to go on restating
it.
If you're talking about my oppostition to Wednesday's model for Richard's
spine, I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that a version which leaves
Richard with his neck inches out of alignment with his lower back, and which
Wednesday herself says would result in a markedly raised shoulder, a
permanently canted pelvis and one leg shorter than the other is at all
likely. Yes, Vickie is very beautiful and you would never know she had a
"problem" if you hadn't been told, but Vickie isn't wearing nothing but
skintight tights from the hips down and being watched fanatically everywhere
she goes (even when eating). If Richard had had one leg shorter than the
other, people would surely have noticed - quite apart from the fact that you
can see in the overhead shot of his bones that his thighbones are the same
length. I don't think there's any sign of uneven wear on his femurs or
pelvis such as you would expect if he had stood at a slant, either, although
I hope AJ will correct me if I'm wrong.
As we discussed recently in another context, in some cases, synthesis just
isn't appropriate.
I have a whole range of images showing Leicester's 3D reproduction of
Richard's spine as it would have been in life, X-rays of living people with
the same curvature as Richard has in the grave and a reconstruction of how
that curve would appear in the flesh, showing how closely the result
resembles the SoA portrait (ie, with one level shoulder and one shoulder
very slightly depressed), and how except for the very slight disparity in
the shoulders it would have no visible effect on Richard's posture,
appearance, lung capacity or mobility, other than to make his ribcage a
rather strange shape which you wouldn't see when he was clothed, given that
the male fashions of the day tended to be rather loose about the chest.
But because you insist on keeping me on moderation - essentially, to punish
me for trying to explain modern business models - I can't post them to the
forum. I've tried and failed to get someone else to post them for me, but
everybody else is too frightened of being bullied if they poke their heads
above the parapet. But I'm not allowed to be frightened of being bullied -
it is, quite literally, against my religion.
> You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent
> phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as
> you have done with me in the past.
A couple of times I 've misunderstood a post Carol made, yes - but I'm not
raging at all the people who've misunderstood my posts over the months.
Just last night, for example, you went off at me because I'd said "upper
torso" and you'd misread it as "upper body". But I'm not mad at you for
it - people are tired, the screen gives them eyestrain, they misread things,
it happens. All you can do is point out politely that they've misunderstood
you, as Carol did to me and I did to you.
> This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and
> valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice
> of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow
> members then we can all get along more smoothly.
Are you an American by any chance? It sounds to me like this is a "two
languages" thing. But I don't know how to talk like an American - I don't
understand how "this is probably so" can possibly be read as "this is
definitely fact", for example.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use
> the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact
Honestly, I don't know how you make that one out. "Probably" means "This
may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that
it's the case".
> when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you
> had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
Only in that "probably" means "I think it's more than 50% likely" and
"might" can be applied to any probability greater than zero.
> The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs
> and opinions
Aren't everybody's? We're all expressing what we think is likely.
Everybody's talking about their own theories about Richard's spine or what
Morton was up to or what happened to the missing boys.
> which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to
> debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening
> objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the
> only option.
If you're talking about the argument about business models, that was because
you hadn't understood what I was saying and kept on replying as if I'd said
something completely different, so I kept on re-stating it in the hopes that
you'd eventually calm down and listen instead of raging at me about things I
hadn't said. I was trying to explain to you how the society could make a
lot more money with very little effort, but you kept on replying as if I was
trying to make the society lose out, so of course I had to go on restating
it.
If you're talking about my oppostition to Wednesday's model for Richard's
spine, I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that a version which leaves
Richard with his neck inches out of alignment with his lower back, and which
Wednesday herself says would result in a markedly raised shoulder, a
permanently canted pelvis and one leg shorter than the other is at all
likely. Yes, Vickie is very beautiful and you would never know she had a
"problem" if you hadn't been told, but Vickie isn't wearing nothing but
skintight tights from the hips down and being watched fanatically everywhere
she goes (even when eating). If Richard had had one leg shorter than the
other, people would surely have noticed - quite apart from the fact that you
can see in the overhead shot of his bones that his thighbones are the same
length. I don't think there's any sign of uneven wear on his femurs or
pelvis such as you would expect if he had stood at a slant, either, although
I hope AJ will correct me if I'm wrong.
As we discussed recently in another context, in some cases, synthesis just
isn't appropriate.
I have a whole range of images showing Leicester's 3D reproduction of
Richard's spine as it would have been in life, X-rays of living people with
the same curvature as Richard has in the grave and a reconstruction of how
that curve would appear in the flesh, showing how closely the result
resembles the SoA portrait (ie, with one level shoulder and one shoulder
very slightly depressed), and how except for the very slight disparity in
the shoulders it would have no visible effect on Richard's posture,
appearance, lung capacity or mobility, other than to make his ribcage a
rather strange shape which you wouldn't see when he was clothed, given that
the male fashions of the day tended to be rather loose about the chest.
But because you insist on keeping me on moderation - essentially, to punish
me for trying to explain modern business models - I can't post them to the
forum. I've tried and failed to get someone else to post them for me, but
everybody else is too frightened of being bullied if they poke their heads
above the parapet. But I'm not allowed to be frightened of being bullied -
it is, quite literally, against my religion.
> You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent
> phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as
> you have done with me in the past.
A couple of times I 've misunderstood a post Carol made, yes - but I'm not
raging at all the people who've misunderstood my posts over the months.
Just last night, for example, you went off at me because I'd said "upper
torso" and you'd misread it as "upper body". But I'm not mad at you for
it - people are tired, the screen gives them eyestrain, they misread things,
it happens. All you can do is point out politely that they've misunderstood
you, as Carol did to me and I did to you.
> This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and
> valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice
> of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow
> members then we can all get along more smoothly.
Are you an American by any chance? It sounds to me like this is a "two
languages" thing. But I don't know how to talk like an American - I don't
understand how "this is probably so" can possibly be read as "this is
definitely fact", for example.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 10:54:59
>
>
> > This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use
> > the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact
>
> Honestly, I don't know how you make that one out. "Probably" means "This
> may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that
> it's the case".
>
Even now you can't accept another persons view on how they see you, it seems that you are in denial all the time, interesting!
>
> > when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you
> > had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
>
> Only in that "probably" means "I think it's more than 50% likely" and
> "might" can be applied to any probability greater than zero.
>
Exactly, the point I am trying to make which you seem to have lost the plot on.
>
> > The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs
> > and opinions
>
> Aren't everybody's? We're all expressing what we think is likely.
> Everybody's talking about their own theories about Richard's spine or what
> Morton was up to or what happened to the missing boys.
>
Yea, but as mentioned before express theories but don't make them sound as they are the facts and no one can challenge you.
>
> > which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to
> > debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening
> > objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the
> > only option.
>
> If you're talking about the argument about business models, that was because
> you hadn't understood what I was saying and kept on replying as if I'd said
> something completely different, so I kept on re-stating it in the hopes that
> you'd eventually calm down and listen instead of raging at me about things I
> hadn't said. I was trying to explain to you how the society could make a
> lot more money with very little effort, but you kept on replying as if I was
> trying to make the society lose out, so of course I had to go on restating
> it.
>
>
I wasn't thinking about business models, just a cross section of you postings in general, but as you have raised it, this is an example where you could only see that your opinion was right and mine was wrong and we're not prepared to accept my views as valid at all.
> If you're talking about my oppostition to Wednesday's model for Richard's
> spine, I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that a version which leaves
> Richard with his neck inches out of alignment with his lower back, and which
> Wednesday herself says would result in a markedly raised shoulder, a
> permanently canted pelvis and one leg shorter than the other is at all
> likely. Yes, Vickie is very beautiful and you would never know she had a
> "problem" if you hadn't been told, but Vickie isn't wearing nothing but
> skintight tights from the hips down and being watched fanatically everywhere
> she goes (even when eating). If Richard had had one leg shorter than the
> other, people would surely have noticed - quite apart from the fact that you
> can see in the overhead shot of his bones that his thighbones are the same
> length. I don't think there's any sign of uneven wear on his femurs or
> pelvis such as you would expect if he had stood at a slant, either, although
> I hope AJ will correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
Nope, this wasn't on my radar.
> As we discussed recently in another context, in some cases, synthesis just
> isn't appropriate.
>
> I have a whole range of images showing Leicester's 3D reproduction of
> Richard's spine as it would have been in life, X-rays of living people with
> the same curvature as Richard has in the grave and a reconstruction of how
> that curve would appear in the flesh, showing how closely the result
> resembles the SoA portrait (ie, with one level shoulder and one shoulder
> very slightly depressed), and how except for the very slight disparity in
> the shoulders it would have no visible effect on Richard's posture,
> appearance, lung capacity or mobility, other than to make his ribcage a
> rather strange shape which you wouldn't see when he was clothed, given that
> the male fashions of the day tended to be rather loose about the chest.
>
But the SoA portrait is not proof of how he actually was, especially for when it was painted. You can't use it as a basis of conjecture, at best it is an artists impression only.
>
> But because you insist on keeping me on moderation - essentially, to punish
> me for trying to explain modern business models - I can't post them to the
> forum. I've tried and failed to get someone else to post them for me, but
> everybody else is too frightened of being bullied if they poke their heads
> above the parapet. But I'm not allowed to be frightened of being bullied -
> it is, quite literally, against my religion.
>
>
You are not alone on moderation and I am not punishing you, nearly all the new members from last October are on moderation due to some spammers getting through and very few of the new members have posted, so until they prove themselves then it stays that way.
> > You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent
> > phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as
> > you have done with me in the past.
>
> A couple of times I 've misunderstood a post Carol made, yes - but I'm not
> raging at all the people who've misunderstood my posts over the months.
> Just last night, for example, you went off at me because I'd said "upper
> torso" and you'd misread it as "upper body". But I'm not mad at you for
> it - people are tired, the screen gives them eyestrain, they misread things,
> it happens. All you can do is point out politely that they've misunderstood
> you, as Carol did to me and I did to you.
>
Which is why you are moderated still, it isn't anything personal to you by me but it does give me that element of control. In fact all the time you have been moderated I have only refused one email and that was because the content had no value at all and didn't really need to be forwarded on, so really you are not doing that badly.
>
> > This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and
> > valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice
> > of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow
> > members then we can all get along more smoothly.
>
> Are you an American by any chance? It sounds to me like this is a "two
> languages" thing. But I don't know how to talk like an American - I don't
> understand how "this is probably so" can possibly be read as "this is
> definitely fact", for example.
>
>
I may have a famous American uncle by name but I can assure you I am not one, perhaps I should be?
>
>
> > This is where I have a problem with the way you post to the forum. To use
> > the word 'probably' sends a message as to say it is fact
>
> Honestly, I don't know how you make that one out. "Probably" means "This
> may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that
> it's the case".
>
Even now you can't accept another persons view on how they see you, it seems that you are in denial all the time, interesting!
>
> > when in reality you, me or anyone else can't say that this is true. If you
> > had used the word 'might' then it has a different meaning on the sentence.
>
> Only in that "probably" means "I think it's more than 50% likely" and
> "might" can be applied to any probability greater than zero.
>
Exactly, the point I am trying to make which you seem to have lost the plot on.
>
> > The greater majority of you postings are very focused on your own beliefs
> > and opinions
>
> Aren't everybody's? We're all expressing what we think is likely.
> Everybody's talking about their own theories about Richard's spine or what
> Morton was up to or what happened to the missing boys.
>
Yea, but as mentioned before express theories but don't make them sound as they are the facts and no one can challenge you.
>
> > which to me come over in this tunnel vision manner and when people try to
> > debate with you they find that you have very little movement for listening
> > objectively to their reply and continue to focus on what you feel is the
> > only option.
>
> If you're talking about the argument about business models, that was because
> you hadn't understood what I was saying and kept on replying as if I'd said
> something completely different, so I kept on re-stating it in the hopes that
> you'd eventually calm down and listen instead of raging at me about things I
> hadn't said. I was trying to explain to you how the society could make a
> lot more money with very little effort, but you kept on replying as if I was
> trying to make the society lose out, so of course I had to go on restating
> it.
>
>
I wasn't thinking about business models, just a cross section of you postings in general, but as you have raised it, this is an example where you could only see that your opinion was right and mine was wrong and we're not prepared to accept my views as valid at all.
> If you're talking about my oppostition to Wednesday's model for Richard's
> spine, I'm sorry but I just cannot accept that a version which leaves
> Richard with his neck inches out of alignment with his lower back, and which
> Wednesday herself says would result in a markedly raised shoulder, a
> permanently canted pelvis and one leg shorter than the other is at all
> likely. Yes, Vickie is very beautiful and you would never know she had a
> "problem" if you hadn't been told, but Vickie isn't wearing nothing but
> skintight tights from the hips down and being watched fanatically everywhere
> she goes (even when eating). If Richard had had one leg shorter than the
> other, people would surely have noticed - quite apart from the fact that you
> can see in the overhead shot of his bones that his thighbones are the same
> length. I don't think there's any sign of uneven wear on his femurs or
> pelvis such as you would expect if he had stood at a slant, either, although
> I hope AJ will correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>
Nope, this wasn't on my radar.
> As we discussed recently in another context, in some cases, synthesis just
> isn't appropriate.
>
> I have a whole range of images showing Leicester's 3D reproduction of
> Richard's spine as it would have been in life, X-rays of living people with
> the same curvature as Richard has in the grave and a reconstruction of how
> that curve would appear in the flesh, showing how closely the result
> resembles the SoA portrait (ie, with one level shoulder and one shoulder
> very slightly depressed), and how except for the very slight disparity in
> the shoulders it would have no visible effect on Richard's posture,
> appearance, lung capacity or mobility, other than to make his ribcage a
> rather strange shape which you wouldn't see when he was clothed, given that
> the male fashions of the day tended to be rather loose about the chest.
>
But the SoA portrait is not proof of how he actually was, especially for when it was painted. You can't use it as a basis of conjecture, at best it is an artists impression only.
>
> But because you insist on keeping me on moderation - essentially, to punish
> me for trying to explain modern business models - I can't post them to the
> forum. I've tried and failed to get someone else to post them for me, but
> everybody else is too frightened of being bullied if they poke their heads
> above the parapet. But I'm not allowed to be frightened of being bullied -
> it is, quite literally, against my religion.
>
>
You are not alone on moderation and I am not punishing you, nearly all the new members from last October are on moderation due to some spammers getting through and very few of the new members have posted, so until they prove themselves then it stays that way.
> > You can also be dismissive of other peoples postings and suddenly invent
> > phrases that you think they have said which in reality they haven't, as
> > you have done with me in the past.
>
> A couple of times I 've misunderstood a post Carol made, yes - but I'm not
> raging at all the people who've misunderstood my posts over the months.
> Just last night, for example, you went off at me because I'd said "upper
> torso" and you'd misread it as "upper body". But I'm not mad at you for
> it - people are tired, the screen gives them eyestrain, they misread things,
> it happens. All you can do is point out politely that they've misunderstood
> you, as Carol did to me and I did to you.
>
Which is why you are moderated still, it isn't anything personal to you by me but it does give me that element of control. In fact all the time you have been moderated I have only refused one email and that was because the content had no value at all and didn't really need to be forwarded on, so really you are not doing that badly.
>
> > This shows to me a lack of understanding of the topics in question and
> > valuing other peoples views. Perhaps if you can select a different choice
> > of phrases to tone down your points and be more understanding of fellow
> > members then we can all get along more smoothly.
>
> Are you an American by any chance? It sounds to me like this is a "two
> languages" thing. But I don't know how to talk like an American - I don't
> understand how "this is probably so" can possibly be read as "this is
> definitely fact", for example.
>
>
I may have a famous American uncle by name but I can assure you I am not one, perhaps I should be?
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 11:07:26
Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then it was unknown in England, I believe? True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a battle (R I mean).
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 19:35
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
That is if Stanley ever had the sweating sickness to begin with...which I doubt...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 19:35
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
That is if Stanley ever had the sweating sickness to begin with...which I doubt...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 11:22:03
There doesn't seem to be anything untoward in the weather conditions of summer 1485, according to reports of weather events. There were several summers in the mid-late C15th where in England and Ireland there were summers of rain and nothing else (one year the rain lasting from Easter to Michelmas); some summers with excessive heat and resulting plague. 1460 was a bad year, with non-existent harvests; 1473 was a very hot summer; 1477's summer saw both excessive heat and irregular weather. 1491 was a summer of non-stop rain.
It may be - without report of any undue weather - that late August was very likely a mix of warmth and coolness.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
>
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
> hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
> hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
> mid August.
>
It may be - without report of any undue weather - that late August was very likely a mix of warmth and coolness.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
>
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
> hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
> hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
> mid August.
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 12:04:05
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought
> in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then
> it was unknown in England, I believe?
I've never heard that - but it's not an illness I've looked into, and you
may well be right. I know that nobody now is entirely sure what sweating
sickness even was, although if I had to guess I'd guess it was an odd type
of 'flu'. [But then that's one of those catch-all phrases - it doesn't help
much.]
> True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly
> suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled
> someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a
> battle (R I mean).
True, but if you've had malaria and then apparently recovered from it it can
suddenly flare up again. This is what seems to have happened to my
great-uncle Denis. I find it hard to believe that he would have been
recruited for The Johnnies and posted behind the Japanese lines if he'd been
obviously unfit, so he must have appeared OK when he was sent into the
jungle - but once there he suffered from "severe bouts of fever" (which I'm
assuming was malaria both because it's the most likely candidate and because
his eldest brother had it). If Richard had appeared healthy the night
before Bosworth and then took ill in the morning, I don't suppose they could
call the battle off.
Of course, then you'd have to ask how Rous would *know*, although he may
have spoken to people who had been at the battle.
Imo if the translation as "strength of a sick/disabled person" is correct
it might be that Rous had heard that Richard's body had been found to
have a twisted spine, and was mistakenly assuming that this would have
siginificantly disabled him. But it could explain a lot about that final
charge if Richard was feverish and unwell - he might well think "I have to
get this over with as soon as possible (if only because I really, really
need to throw up soon, and throwing up inside a helmet isn't optimal)."
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought
> in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then
> it was unknown in England, I believe?
I've never heard that - but it's not an illness I've looked into, and you
may well be right. I know that nobody now is entirely sure what sweating
sickness even was, although if I had to guess I'd guess it was an odd type
of 'flu'. [But then that's one of those catch-all phrases - it doesn't help
much.]
> True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly
> suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled
> someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a
> battle (R I mean).
True, but if you've had malaria and then apparently recovered from it it can
suddenly flare up again. This is what seems to have happened to my
great-uncle Denis. I find it hard to believe that he would have been
recruited for The Johnnies and posted behind the Japanese lines if he'd been
obviously unfit, so he must have appeared OK when he was sent into the
jungle - but once there he suffered from "severe bouts of fever" (which I'm
assuming was malaria both because it's the most likely candidate and because
his eldest brother had it). If Richard had appeared healthy the night
before Bosworth and then took ill in the morning, I don't suppose they could
call the battle off.
Of course, then you'd have to ask how Rous would *know*, although he may
have spoken to people who had been at the battle.
Imo if the translation as "strength of a sick/disabled person" is correct
it might be that Rous had heard that Richard's body had been found to
have a twisted spine, and was mistakenly assuming that this would have
siginificantly disabled him. But it could explain a lot about that final
charge if Richard was feverish and unwell - he might well think "I have to
get this over with as soon as possible (if only because I really, really
need to throw up soon, and throwing up inside a helmet isn't optimal)."
Weather was Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 13:19:11
There is something about an outbreak of the sweating sickness in London
soon after, which I believe indicates a sudden drop in temperatures.
Stanley was a victim, but unfortunately survived.
Paul
On 28/05/2013 18:30, SandraMachin wrote:
> Regarding the weather in 1485...I have no idea, because the website I sometimes visit has nothing to offer for our' year. Anyway, it's an interesting site, and mentions Buckingham and the bad weather for 1483. http://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
soon after, which I believe indicates a sudden drop in temperatures.
Stanley was a victim, but unfortunately survived.
Paul
On 28/05/2013 18:30, SandraMachin wrote:
> Regarding the weather in 1485...I have no idea, because the website I sometimes visit has nothing to offer for our' year. Anyway, it's an interesting site, and mentions Buckingham and the bad weather for 1483. http://www.booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/wxevents.htm
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: underwear was appearance
2013-05-29 13:23:05
Thank you. Reminds me of teen age days with my mum's catalogue.:-[
Paul
can we be careful about subject titles peeps and change them when we are
no longer talking about something?
> Paul wrote:
>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>
> Here's a few sources:
>
> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>
> Specific to medieval unders:
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Paul
can we be careful about subject titles peeps and change them when we are
no longer talking about something?
> Paul wrote:
>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>
> Here's a few sources:
>
> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>
> Specific to medieval unders:
> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>
> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Subject matter
2013-05-29 13:46:59
Further to this look at what people have been posting under the title of
Richard's appearance!
I open something to find talk about the weather, underwear, fingers, and
goodness knows what else!
I just ask please can we be careful and change it when the topic veers
off into something else.
Paul
On 29/05/2013 13:23, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Thank you. Reminds me of teen age days with my mum's catalogue.:-[
> Paul
> can we be careful about subject titles peeps and change them when we are
> no longer talking about something?
>
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>> Here's a few sources:
>>
>> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
>> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>>
>> Specific to medieval unders:
>> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>>
>> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard's appearance!
I open something to find talk about the weather, underwear, fingers, and
goodness knows what else!
I just ask please can we be careful and change it when the topic veers
off into something else.
Paul
On 29/05/2013 13:23, Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
> Thank you. Reminds me of teen age days with my mum's catalogue.:-[
> Paul
> can we be careful about subject titles peeps and change them when we are
> no longer talking about something?
>
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> What did people wear as under garments? Hose for the men and linen
>>> shifts for the women, but what else underneath those?
>> Here's a few sources:
>>
>> Reproductions of clothing from medieval times, complete with a lesson on how to point your braies and chauses:
>> http://www.revivalclothing.com/shopbytimeperiod.aspx
>>
>> Specific to medieval unders:
>> http://historymedren.about.com/od/clothingandfabric/ss/underwear.htm
>>
>> Specific to women, lacy medieval lingerie (bra and knickers) from the 15th century was discovered beneath the floorboards of an Austrian castle in July 2012. Really.
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2174568/Austrian-dates-bras-15th-century-The-scraps-lace-castle-vault.html#ixzz20trdywo1
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 13:51:38
I haven't mentioned Rous I was just commenting on the JAH proposal that Richard could have been ill and sweating sickness was then mentioned in relation to Stanley.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 11:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought
> in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then
> it was unknown in England, I believe?
I've never heard that - but it's not an illness I've looked into, and you
may well be right. I know that nobody now is entirely sure what sweating
sickness even was, although if I had to guess I'd guess it was an odd type
of 'flu'. [But then that's one of those catch-all phrases - it doesn't help
much.]
> True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly
> suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled
> someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a
> battle (R I mean).
True, but if you've had malaria and then apparently recovered from it it can
suddenly flare up again. This is what seems to have happened to my
great-uncle Denis. I find it hard to believe that he would have been
recruited for The Johnnies and posted behind the Japanese lines if he'd been
obviously unfit, so he must have appeared OK when he was sent into the
jungle - but once there he suffered from "severe bouts of fever" (which I'm
assuming was malaria both because it's the most likely candidate and because
his eldest brother had it). If Richard had appeared healthy the night
before Bosworth and then took ill in the morning, I don't suppose they could
call the battle off.
Of course, then you'd have to ask how Rous would *know*, although he may
have spoken to people who had been at the battle.
Imo if the translation as "strength of a sick/disabled person" is correct
it might be that Rous had heard that Richard's body had been found to
have a twisted spine, and was mistakenly assuming that this would have
siginificantly disabled him. But it could explain a lot about that final
charge if Richard was feverish and unwell - he might well think "I have to
get this over with as soon as possible (if only because I really, really
need to throw up soon, and throwing up inside a helmet isn't optimal)."
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 11:47
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Appearance
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought
> in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then
> it was unknown in England, I believe?
I've never heard that - but it's not an illness I've looked into, and you
may well be right. I know that nobody now is entirely sure what sweating
sickness even was, although if I had to guess I'd guess it was an odd type
of 'flu'. [But then that's one of those catch-all phrases - it doesn't help
much.]
> True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly
> suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled
> someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a
> battle (R I mean).
True, but if you've had malaria and then apparently recovered from it it can
suddenly flare up again. This is what seems to have happened to my
great-uncle Denis. I find it hard to believe that he would have been
recruited for The Johnnies and posted behind the Japanese lines if he'd been
obviously unfit, so he must have appeared OK when he was sent into the
jungle - but once there he suffered from "severe bouts of fever" (which I'm
assuming was malaria both because it's the most likely candidate and because
his eldest brother had it). If Richard had appeared healthy the night
before Bosworth and then took ill in the morning, I don't suppose they could
call the battle off.
Of course, then you'd have to ask how Rous would *know*, although he may
have spoken to people who had been at the battle.
Imo if the translation as "strength of a sick/disabled person" is correct
it might be that Rous had heard that Richard's body had been found to
have a twisted spine, and was mistakenly assuming that this would have
siginificantly disabled him. But it could explain a lot about that final
charge if Richard was feverish and unwell - he might well think "I have to
get this over with as soon as possible (if only because I really, really
need to throw up soon, and throwing up inside a helmet isn't optimal)."
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 13:54:10
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> But the SoA portrait is not proof of how he actually was, especially for
> when it was painted. You can't use it as a basis of conjecture, at best it
> is an artists impression only.
It's usually assumed by art historians, though, that both versions of
Richard, the SoA and the NPG/RC one, are copies from lost originals which
were painted from life, and we can see from the reconstruction that both are
pretty good likenesses (although SoA has slightly displaced his mouth,
giving him a marginally shorter chin and longer upper lip than he should
have, plus I've a suspicion it's been overcleaned because his expression has
changed and become less amiable in the cleaning process). That they *are*
quite good likenesses means that they probably do give us a reasonably good
impression of what he was like, so imo we shouldn't wilfully choose an
option which disagrees with the portraits, when one which agrees with the
portraits is available.
Of course, the pritraits disagree with each other, just to make our life
more itneresting. The NPG and RC portraits both show him with the right
shoulder slightly higher - but the RC one has definitely been altered, and
the NPG one may also have been, at least in making the copy from the
original. Plus the way his gold collar hangs suggests that in this version
his torso was actually filled in by draping the doublet and collar over a
flat cut-out. So we can put very little faith in them as regards the set of
his shoulders.
The SoA one one the other hand shows properly 3D shoulders and chest and a
complex collar which has actual perspective on it, which certainly looks as
though it was painted from life. If you look at the collar and count out
from the central link, it takes fewer links to cross his left shoulder than
his right, suggesting that his left shoulder is depressed.
Of course, we then have the same problem as with his hands, ie the body
could be somebody else's, used as a standard model because the sitter's time
was too valuable to keep him there while the artist painted more than his
face. But it would be a really big coincidence if the body was that of an
artist's model, and that model happened to have uneven shoulders too.
We do, however, always have to consider that this portrait (or for that
matter the other one) could be mirror reversed from the original. But given
the existence of a reconstruction *and an X-ray* which both show somebody
who has a curve pretty-much exactly the same as what Richard has in the
grave, and which both have a level shoulder on the concave side of the curve
and a slightly depressed shoulder on the convex side, that tends to suggest
that SoA is accurate.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> But the SoA portrait is not proof of how he actually was, especially for
> when it was painted. You can't use it as a basis of conjecture, at best it
> is an artists impression only.
It's usually assumed by art historians, though, that both versions of
Richard, the SoA and the NPG/RC one, are copies from lost originals which
were painted from life, and we can see from the reconstruction that both are
pretty good likenesses (although SoA has slightly displaced his mouth,
giving him a marginally shorter chin and longer upper lip than he should
have, plus I've a suspicion it's been overcleaned because his expression has
changed and become less amiable in the cleaning process). That they *are*
quite good likenesses means that they probably do give us a reasonably good
impression of what he was like, so imo we shouldn't wilfully choose an
option which disagrees with the portraits, when one which agrees with the
portraits is available.
Of course, the pritraits disagree with each other, just to make our life
more itneresting. The NPG and RC portraits both show him with the right
shoulder slightly higher - but the RC one has definitely been altered, and
the NPG one may also have been, at least in making the copy from the
original. Plus the way his gold collar hangs suggests that in this version
his torso was actually filled in by draping the doublet and collar over a
flat cut-out. So we can put very little faith in them as regards the set of
his shoulders.
The SoA one one the other hand shows properly 3D shoulders and chest and a
complex collar which has actual perspective on it, which certainly looks as
though it was painted from life. If you look at the collar and count out
from the central link, it takes fewer links to cross his left shoulder than
his right, suggesting that his left shoulder is depressed.
Of course, we then have the same problem as with his hands, ie the body
could be somebody else's, used as a standard model because the sitter's time
was too valuable to keep him there while the artist painted more than his
face. But it would be a really big coincidence if the body was that of an
artist's model, and that model happened to have uneven shoulders too.
We do, however, always have to consider that this portrait (or for that
matter the other one) could be mirror reversed from the original. But given
the existence of a reconstruction *and an X-ray* which both show somebody
who has a curve pretty-much exactly the same as what Richard has in the
grave, and which both have a level shoulder on the concave side of the curve
and a slightly depressed shoulder on the convex side, that tends to suggest
that SoA is accurate.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 13:57:46
That's useful Col. Extremes of weather are more than often accompanied by famine, plague or excessive deaths (as caused by cold to the old and infirm in winter). That, I would have thought, would have been commented upon somewhere as an 'omen' in such an auspicious year. (Like the reported eclipse at Anne's death)
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 11:21
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
There doesn't seem to be anything untoward in the weather conditions of summer 1485, according to reports of weather events. There were several summers in the mid-late C15th where in England and Ireland there were summers of rain and nothing else (one year the rain lasting from Easter to Michelmas); some summers with excessive heat and resulting plague. 1460 was a bad year, with non-existent harvests; 1473 was a very hot summer; 1477's summer saw both excessive heat and irregular weather. 1491 was a summer of non-stop rain.
It may be - without report of any undue weather - that late August was very likely a mix of warmth and coolness.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
>
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
> hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
> hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
> mid August.
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 11:21
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
There doesn't seem to be anything untoward in the weather conditions of summer 1485, according to reports of weather events. There were several summers in the mid-late C15th where in England and Ireland there were summers of rain and nothing else (one year the rain lasting from Easter to Michelmas); some summers with excessive heat and resulting plague. 1460 was a bad year, with non-existent harvests; 1473 was a very hot summer; 1477's summer saw both excessive heat and irregular weather. 1491 was a summer of non-stop rain.
It may be - without report of any undue weather - that late August was very likely a mix of warmth and coolness.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Neil Trump
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > ...and how hot do you think it was when the BoB took place?
>
> We can't know, since the British weather is so unpredictable, but it was
> (allowing for calendar shift) the very end of August or start of September,
> which is often hot.
>
> British weather being what it is, it could also have been freezing cold and
> hailing - but hot is more likely, or at least, the likelihood of it being
> hot at the end of August is higher than at most other times of year except
> mid August.
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 15:00:07
Claire wrote:
>
> Btw, if we can only post about things we're 100% sure of, why are we
> discussing what happened to the two boys, at all? Or any of it, really - there's not much about Richard that we can be *100%* sure of. It's all about competing probabilities.
>
Carol responds:
I agree that if we were 100 percent sure of anything beyond a few dates and other indisputable facts, we wouldn't be members of this forum because there would be nothing to discuss. But I agree with Neil that we need to distinguish clearly between what we know to be fact and our own opinion and to provide sources when we can to support our views when we speculate. I also think, or rather feel, that we have enough controversies to deal with in answering the traditionalists rather than introducing new ones based on amateur observations of Richard's skeleton. (On the other hand, if the "experts" say something that we disagree with or think is a premature conclusion, such as their assumptions that his hands were tied and he had no shroud, we have every right to speak our minds in opposition to those assumptions if we can find evidence to the contrary.)
I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles to know what we're up against and use primary sources where we can find them as evidence against traditionalist assumptions. That definitely doesn't apply to Richard's fingers, which are not discussed anywhere in contemporary or Tudor sources. And missing phalanges are very common in skeletons unearthed by archaeologists because the bones are so small. You and AJ could write to Lin Foxhall (I would steer clear of junior colleague Jo Appleby) and see if she has an opinion on the matter. Meantime, I suggest treating it as a possibility and not a probability. And I wouldn't base any speculation on hands as painted by relatively unskilled artists. If the artist were Hans Holbein and the painting were an original, it would be another matter. We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG portrait depicts.
Just some friendly suggestions to avoid contention on this list. Meantime, I'm withdrawing from the Latin discussion for the same reason since it has led in directions I didn't anticipate. Darn Romans and their ambiguous synthetic language. {wan smile)
Carol
>
> Btw, if we can only post about things we're 100% sure of, why are we
> discussing what happened to the two boys, at all? Or any of it, really - there's not much about Richard that we can be *100%* sure of. It's all about competing probabilities.
>
Carol responds:
I agree that if we were 100 percent sure of anything beyond a few dates and other indisputable facts, we wouldn't be members of this forum because there would be nothing to discuss. But I agree with Neil that we need to distinguish clearly between what we know to be fact and our own opinion and to provide sources when we can to support our views when we speculate. I also think, or rather feel, that we have enough controversies to deal with in answering the traditionalists rather than introducing new ones based on amateur observations of Richard's skeleton. (On the other hand, if the "experts" say something that we disagree with or think is a premature conclusion, such as their assumptions that his hands were tied and he had no shroud, we have every right to speak our minds in opposition to those assumptions if we can find evidence to the contrary.)
I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles to know what we're up against and use primary sources where we can find them as evidence against traditionalist assumptions. That definitely doesn't apply to Richard's fingers, which are not discussed anywhere in contemporary or Tudor sources. And missing phalanges are very common in skeletons unearthed by archaeologists because the bones are so small. You and AJ could write to Lin Foxhall (I would steer clear of junior colleague Jo Appleby) and see if she has an opinion on the matter. Meantime, I suggest treating it as a possibility and not a probability. And I wouldn't base any speculation on hands as painted by relatively unskilled artists. If the artist were Hans Holbein and the painting were an original, it would be another matter. We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG portrait depicts.
Just some friendly suggestions to avoid contention on this list. Meantime, I'm withdrawing from the Latin discussion for the same reason since it has led in directions I didn't anticipate. Darn Romans and their ambiguous synthetic language. {wan smile)
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 15:09:07
Claire wrote:
"Probably" means "This may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that it's the case".
Carol responds:
Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt." So "in my opinion" has nothing to do with it. You're far from the only one who makes this mistake. The traditionalists repeatedly say "Richard probably murdered his nephews" when they mean "in my opinion, he probably did it." That's why it's safer to say "possibly," which does not imply a degree of likelihood, or "might," or some other indicator of uncertainty.
This forum isn't about being right. It's about exchanging opinions and learning from each other. I think that's what Neill is saying.
Carol
"Probably" means "This may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that it's the case".
Carol responds:
Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt." So "in my opinion" has nothing to do with it. You're far from the only one who makes this mistake. The traditionalists repeatedly say "Richard probably murdered his nephews" when they mean "in my opinion, he probably did it." That's why it's safer to say "possibly," which does not imply a degree of likelihood, or "might," or some other indicator of uncertainty.
This forum isn't about being right. It's about exchanging opinions and learning from each other. I think that's what Neill is saying.
Carol
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 15:36:37
Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then it was unknown in England, I believe? True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a battle (R I mean).
Carol responds:
I think there are references to the sweating sickness in England as early as 1483, but I'm not sure where to look to confirm that. We also know that there was plague in York in August 1485, but whether it was the sweating sickness, I don't know. J A-H says that Stanley may actually have been ill and his messenger may have passed it on to Richard. If the Croyland chronicler (who wasn't at Bosworth and is consequently working from second- or third-hand information) is right that Richard looked pale (actually, he says "livid and ghastly," but we can allow for exaggeration in a biased source) and even more "attenuated" (thin) than usual, he (Richaard) may indeed have been ill. I'm not even going to attempt to seek out the original Latin in this case, and I'm certainly not saying that the chronicler (who wasn't present and makes some obvious errors, not to mention using the language of a sycophant in calling Tudor an angel sent to deliver England from evil) is in any way accurate. But if someone who was present did mention to the chronicler or one of his informants that Richard looked thin and pale, as if he had suffered from nightmares (which, in Croyland, become real nightmares as if he had insight into Richard's thoughts), that description could indicate that, yes, he was ill. And, as J A-H points out, illness could have interfered with his judgment. (Or it could all be the sour imaginings of a chronicler who has "Richmond" (Tudor) charging Richard!)
We've explored the sweating sickness hypothesis before, but it might be worth considering again. Does anyone know where to look to see if there was sweating sickness in England ca. 1483?
Carol
>
> Do I now recall that the sweating sickness is thought to have been brought in by Henry's troops as it ravaged the country in the autumn? Until then it was unknown in England, I believe? True malaria was more rife then than now (both H8 and E4 almost certainly suffered from it) but one would have thought that would have disabled someone so severely that they could not contemplate participating in a battle (R I mean).
Carol responds:
I think there are references to the sweating sickness in England as early as 1483, but I'm not sure where to look to confirm that. We also know that there was plague in York in August 1485, but whether it was the sweating sickness, I don't know. J A-H says that Stanley may actually have been ill and his messenger may have passed it on to Richard. If the Croyland chronicler (who wasn't at Bosworth and is consequently working from second- or third-hand information) is right that Richard looked pale (actually, he says "livid and ghastly," but we can allow for exaggeration in a biased source) and even more "attenuated" (thin) than usual, he (Richaard) may indeed have been ill. I'm not even going to attempt to seek out the original Latin in this case, and I'm certainly not saying that the chronicler (who wasn't present and makes some obvious errors, not to mention using the language of a sycophant in calling Tudor an angel sent to deliver England from evil) is in any way accurate. But if someone who was present did mention to the chronicler or one of his informants that Richard looked thin and pale, as if he had suffered from nightmares (which, in Croyland, become real nightmares as if he had insight into Richard's thoughts), that description could indicate that, yes, he was ill. And, as J A-H points out, illness could have interfered with his judgment. (Or it could all be the sour imaginings of a chronicler who has "Richmond" (Tudor) charging Richard!)
We've explored the sweating sickness hypothesis before, but it might be worth considering again. Does anyone know where to look to see if there was sweating sickness in England ca. 1483?
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 15:38:40
Carol,
Yes, you understand fully what I am trying to say and it is all about how you wish to express ones self without being domineering and coming over aggressively which frightens people away from responding for fear of being put down themselves.
Neil
On 29 May 2013, at 15:09, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Claire wrote:
> "Probably" means "This may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that it's the case".
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt." So "in my opinion" has nothing to do with it. You're far from the only one who makes this mistake. The traditionalists repeatedly say "Richard probably murdered his nephews" when they mean "in my opinion, he probably did it." That's why it's safer to say "possibly," which does not imply a degree of likelihood, or "might," or some other indicator of uncertainty.
>
> This forum isn't about being right. It's about exchanging opinions and learning from each other. I think that's what Neill is saying.
>
> Carol
>
>
Yes, you understand fully what I am trying to say and it is all about how you wish to express ones self without being domineering and coming over aggressively which frightens people away from responding for fear of being put down themselves.
Neil
On 29 May 2013, at 15:09, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Claire wrote:
> "Probably" means "This may or may not be the case but in my opinion it's more than 50% likely that it's the case".
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected : without much doubt." So "in my opinion" has nothing to do with it. You're far from the only one who makes this mistake. The traditionalists repeatedly say "Richard probably murdered his nephews" when they mean "in my opinion, he probably did it." That's why it's safer to say "possibly," which does not imply a degree of likelihood, or "might," or some other indicator of uncertainty.
>
> This forum isn't about being right. It's about exchanging opinions and learning from each other. I think that's what Neill is saying.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:06:46
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I also think, or rather feel, that we have enough controversies to deal
> with in answering the traditionalists rather than introducing new ones
> based on amateur observations of Richard's skeleton.
Neither AJ nor I is precisely an amateur, though. She's a doctor and I'm
trained as a biologist, although my knowledge of the spine comes mainly from
having had a boyfriend (sadly deceased) who had spina bifida occulta, and
for whose sake I did a great deal of reading up - plus the fact that all
staff at the NHS Trust where I worked got at least some instruction on
spinal mobility as part of our mandatory elfnsafety training.
> That definitely doesn't apply to Richard's fingers, which are not
> discussed anywhere in contemporary or Tudor sources. And missing phalanges
> are very common in skeletons unearthed by archaeologists because the bones
> are so small.
Surely, but when the remaining bone is wasted and apparently injured at the
tip *and* an existing portrait shows that finger to be only half length, and
the person is known to have spent a lot of time fighting with edged weapons,
I think that a doctor and a biologist are entitled to draw at least
tentative conclusions.
Not that it's important either way, of course. But it's interesting imo,
just as it's interesting to know exactly what his face looked like, or that
he'd lost some teeth, or what sport of underpants he would have worn. If it
can be proved on his skeleton that that finger was damaged, it would be a
good confirmation that he was probably a very hands-on fighter.
Btw, I read in a novel years ago a scene where Richard's arm was injured in
a battle - Tewkesbury I think. I wondered if that scene was purely
invented, or whether there's some documentary evidence that he was wounded
in the arm at that time - in which case, this could well have been the loss
of part of a finger.
> You and AJ could write to Lin Foxhall (I would steer clear of junior
> colleague Jo Appleby) and see if she has an opinion on the matter.
I was thinking of writing to Foxhall anyway, about the shroud business. I'm
sure you're right about that. Can you remember offhand what the name was of
the dig where you saw other skeletons in a similar pose?
Although I fear Foxhall too may have signed a gagging order with Ch. 4....
> Meantime, I suggest treating it as a possibility and not a probability.
I would have agreed with you before AJ made her observations, when it was
just my opinion, but I give it a much higher probability now that she's
pointed out that the end of the remaining phalanx appears to be damaged.
> We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side
> instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG
> portrait depicts.
I agree it's probably an error, but for all we know, he could have had his
hair on the far side caught up into a hairnet to keep it under control - he
looks like his hair might be the sort that tends to stand up on its own like
a dandelion clock.
> I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles
I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
take.
> Just some friendly suggestions to avoid contention on this list. Meantime,
> I'm withdrawing from the Latin discussion for the same reason since it has
> led in directions I didn't anticipate.
Well, personally I think that's a pity, because your observations are always
informative and useful. Even when you're just asking for clarification
you're probably the best person at knowing what *needs* to be clarified.
> Darn Romans and their ambiguous synthetic language. {wan smile)
I've spent years editing Stella's slightly mangled Italian-English into
"proper" English, and I often find things that are very hard to put into
proper English because you just wouldn't *say* that in English. I'm sure
Latin is the same. It's why I thought an Italian perspective on it might be
useful - just as I'm sure an English speaker has a better chance of really
understanding Chaucer or Beorwulf [not sure I spelled that right] in the
original than an Italian does, however good their English might be. But I'm
still waiting for comments from Stella's friend the Latin expert, rather
than her daughter, who speaks it quite well but isn't an expert.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I also think, or rather feel, that we have enough controversies to deal
> with in answering the traditionalists rather than introducing new ones
> based on amateur observations of Richard's skeleton.
Neither AJ nor I is precisely an amateur, though. She's a doctor and I'm
trained as a biologist, although my knowledge of the spine comes mainly from
having had a boyfriend (sadly deceased) who had spina bifida occulta, and
for whose sake I did a great deal of reading up - plus the fact that all
staff at the NHS Trust where I worked got at least some instruction on
spinal mobility as part of our mandatory elfnsafety training.
> That definitely doesn't apply to Richard's fingers, which are not
> discussed anywhere in contemporary or Tudor sources. And missing phalanges
> are very common in skeletons unearthed by archaeologists because the bones
> are so small.
Surely, but when the remaining bone is wasted and apparently injured at the
tip *and* an existing portrait shows that finger to be only half length, and
the person is known to have spent a lot of time fighting with edged weapons,
I think that a doctor and a biologist are entitled to draw at least
tentative conclusions.
Not that it's important either way, of course. But it's interesting imo,
just as it's interesting to know exactly what his face looked like, or that
he'd lost some teeth, or what sport of underpants he would have worn. If it
can be proved on his skeleton that that finger was damaged, it would be a
good confirmation that he was probably a very hands-on fighter.
Btw, I read in a novel years ago a scene where Richard's arm was injured in
a battle - Tewkesbury I think. I wondered if that scene was purely
invented, or whether there's some documentary evidence that he was wounded
in the arm at that time - in which case, this could well have been the loss
of part of a finger.
> You and AJ could write to Lin Foxhall (I would steer clear of junior
> colleague Jo Appleby) and see if she has an opinion on the matter.
I was thinking of writing to Foxhall anyway, about the shroud business. I'm
sure you're right about that. Can you remember offhand what the name was of
the dig where you saw other skeletons in a similar pose?
Although I fear Foxhall too may have signed a gagging order with Ch. 4....
> Meantime, I suggest treating it as a possibility and not a probability.
I would have agreed with you before AJ made her observations, when it was
just my opinion, but I give it a much higher probability now that she's
pointed out that the end of the remaining phalanx appears to be damaged.
> We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side
> instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG
> portrait depicts.
I agree it's probably an error, but for all we know, he could have had his
hair on the far side caught up into a hairnet to keep it under control - he
looks like his hair might be the sort that tends to stand up on its own like
a dandelion clock.
> I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles
I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
take.
> Just some friendly suggestions to avoid contention on this list. Meantime,
> I'm withdrawing from the Latin discussion for the same reason since it has
> led in directions I didn't anticipate.
Well, personally I think that's a pity, because your observations are always
informative and useful. Even when you're just asking for clarification
you're probably the best person at knowing what *needs* to be clarified.
> Darn Romans and their ambiguous synthetic language. {wan smile)
I've spent years editing Stella's slightly mangled Italian-English into
"proper" English, and I often find things that are very hard to put into
proper English because you just wouldn't *say* that in English. I'm sure
Latin is the same. It's why I thought an Italian perspective on it might be
useful - just as I'm sure an English speaker has a better chance of really
understanding Chaucer or Beorwulf [not sure I spelled that right] in the
original than an Italian does, however good their English might be. But I'm
still waiting for comments from Stella's friend the Latin expert, rather
than her daughter, who speaks it quite well but isn't an expert.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:09:09
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual,
> or to be expected : without much doubt."
We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
"Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual,
> or to be expected : without much doubt."
We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
"Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:39:12
Just so you all know where I'm coming from, it is my professional opinion
that Richard's finger does show damage to the bone we've been discussing.
As opposed to my semi-informed opinion about his scoliosis.
I was trained as a radiologist (although that's not what I do now) & have
looked at lots & lots of bone x-rays. Does that make me infallible - no
way, so people are free to make what they want of my opinion. It doesn't
seem like a very big deal to me (those farmers again) so I don't plan to
say any more on this subject. I do plan to continue asking questions and
to offer opinions & observations that may be helpful - useful - interesting
to others in this group, and hope they will be taken in the spirit offered.
A J
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:09 PM
>
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true,
> factual,
> > or to be expected : without much doubt."
>
> We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
>
> Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
> which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
>
> Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
>
> "Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
>
>
>
that Richard's finger does show damage to the bone we've been discussing.
As opposed to my semi-informed opinion about his scoliosis.
I was trained as a radiologist (although that's not what I do now) & have
looked at lots & lots of bone x-rays. Does that make me infallible - no
way, so people are free to make what they want of my opinion. It doesn't
seem like a very big deal to me (those farmers again) so I don't plan to
say any more on this subject. I do plan to continue asking questions and
to offer opinions & observations that may be helpful - useful - interesting
to others in this group, and hope they will be taken in the spirit offered.
A J
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 3:09 PM
>
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
> > Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true,
> factual,
> > or to be expected : without much doubt."
>
> We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
>
> Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
> which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
>
> Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
>
> "Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:40:24
On 29 May 2013, at 15:59, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> Surely, but when the remaining bone is wasted and apparently injured at the
> tip *and* an existing portrait shows that finger to be only half length, and
> the person is known to have spent a lot of time fighting with edged weapons,
> I think that a doctor and a biologist are entitled to draw at least
> tentative conclusions.
>
Yes, draw conclusions and couch it in a manor as such, not to make a statement that is telling others this is what I deduce and therefore it has to be fact, which you do a lot of!
>
> Not that it's important either way, of course. But it's interesting imo,
> just as it's interesting to know exactly what his face looked like, or that
> he'd lost some teeth, or what sport of underpants he would have worn. If it
> can be proved on his skeleton that that finger was damaged, it would be a
> good confirmation that he was probably a very hands-on fighter.
>
There is no way that you can make that connection. There are a million other ways that it is possible to lose part of a finger, again this is coming down to your tunnel vision on what you want to believe and force other people to believe is true.
>
> Btw, I read in a novel years ago a scene where Richard's arm was injured in
> a battle - Tewkesbury I think. I wondered if that scene was purely
> invented, or whether there's some documentary evidence that he was wounded
> in the arm at that time - in which case, this could well have been the loss
> of part of a finger.
>
Ah, the blurring of novels with reality, now we can see where you are coming from.
>
> > We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side
> > instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG
> > portrait depicts.
>
> I agree it's probably an error, but for all we know, he could have had his
> hair on the far side caught up into a hairnet to keep it under control - he
> looks like his hair might be the sort that tends to stand up on its own like
> a dandelion clock.
>
So you can accept an error when it suits you but then invent a reason for it without any basis of fact, intriguing!
>
> > I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles
>
> I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
> difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
> English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
> my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
> take.
>
>
Bit heavy for you then or afraid it doesn't align with your opinions?
>
>
>
> Surely, but when the remaining bone is wasted and apparently injured at the
> tip *and* an existing portrait shows that finger to be only half length, and
> the person is known to have spent a lot of time fighting with edged weapons,
> I think that a doctor and a biologist are entitled to draw at least
> tentative conclusions.
>
Yes, draw conclusions and couch it in a manor as such, not to make a statement that is telling others this is what I deduce and therefore it has to be fact, which you do a lot of!
>
> Not that it's important either way, of course. But it's interesting imo,
> just as it's interesting to know exactly what his face looked like, or that
> he'd lost some teeth, or what sport of underpants he would have worn. If it
> can be proved on his skeleton that that finger was damaged, it would be a
> good confirmation that he was probably a very hands-on fighter.
>
There is no way that you can make that connection. There are a million other ways that it is possible to lose part of a finger, again this is coming down to your tunnel vision on what you want to believe and force other people to believe is true.
>
> Btw, I read in a novel years ago a scene where Richard's arm was injured in
> a battle - Tewkesbury I think. I wondered if that scene was purely
> invented, or whether there's some documentary evidence that he was wounded
> in the arm at that time - in which case, this could well have been the loss
> of part of a finger.
>
Ah, the blurring of novels with reality, now we can see where you are coming from.
>
> > We might as well think that Richard really had a clump of hair on one side
> > instead of a smooth pageboy all around because that's what the NPG
> > portrait depicts.
>
> I agree it's probably an error, but for all we know, he could have had his
> hair on the far side caught up into a hairnet to keep it under control - he
> looks like his hair might be the sort that tends to stand up on its own like
> a dandelion clock.
>
So you can accept an error when it suits you but then invent a reason for it without any basis of fact, intriguing!
>
> > I do highly recommend that all of us read or reread the chronicles
>
> I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
> difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
> English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
> my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
> take.
>
>
Bit heavy for you then or afraid it doesn't align with your opinions?
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:47:47
On 29 May 2013, at 16:05, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> > Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual,
> > or to be expected : without much doubt."
>
> We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
>
Perhaps then it may be a good idea to align with everyone else so that we are all in synch with each other. You remind me of the time my children went through a particular phase of growing up, you couldn't reason with them because they were alway right and as parents we didn't understand. I am glad to say they now see we as parents were coming from.
>
> Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
> which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
>
> Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
>
> "Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
>
It looks like this R3 forum is most definitely not meeting your needs and the audience which you are seeking to address. Can I suggest that you change how you conduct yourself on the forum or seek another R3 forum that meets your expectations? Can you advise your intention please?
>
>
> > Actually, it doesn't. It means "insofar as seems reasonably true, factual,
> > or to be expected : without much doubt."
>
> We're using different dictionaries then. I mainly use an old Webster's:
>
Perhaps then it may be a good idea to align with everyone else so that we are all in synch with each other. You remind me of the time my children went through a particular phase of growing up, you couldn't reason with them because they were alway right and as parents we didn't understand. I am glad to say they now see we as parents were coming from.
>
> Probable (a.) Having more evidence for than against; supported by evidence
> which inclines the mind to believe, but leaves some room for doubt; likely.
>
> Probably (adv.) In a probable manner; in likelihood
>
> "Having more evidence for than against" just means "more than 50%".
>
It looks like this R3 forum is most definitely not meeting your needs and the audience which you are seeking to address. Can I suggest that you change how you conduct yourself on the forum or seek another R3 forum that meets your expectations? Can you advise your intention please?
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 16:49:59
For Pete's sake!
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 17:04:18
Hilary Jones wrote:
"It's the last third of the year so roughly, as you say, from September. The
three terms at Oxbridge are still Michaelmas, Hilary (Jan to Mar) and
Trinity (summer)."
Doug here:
Basically then, a cash economy overlaid onto an agricultural one is the most
likely explanation then.
Indoor servants, or anyone else the employer provided food and lodging for,
would receive their wages once a year (what did they need cahs for?), those
with homes of their own (farm laborers?) would receive theirs at the end of
each quarter (after subtracting anything due to the landlord, if there *was*
anything due), and casual labor would be paid when the job, whatever it was,
was completed. Does leave shop owners (drapiers, etc) out on a limb though,
as they didn't really fit into any of those categories (assuming I'm even
correct about *that*!)
Doug
"It's the last third of the year so roughly, as you say, from September. The
three terms at Oxbridge are still Michaelmas, Hilary (Jan to Mar) and
Trinity (summer)."
Doug here:
Basically then, a cash economy overlaid onto an agricultural one is the most
likely explanation then.
Indoor servants, or anyone else the employer provided food and lodging for,
would receive their wages once a year (what did they need cahs for?), those
with homes of their own (farm laborers?) would receive theirs at the end of
each quarter (after subtracting anything due to the landlord, if there *was*
anything due), and casual labor would be paid when the job, whatever it was,
was completed. Does leave shop owners (drapiers, etc) out on a limb though,
as they didn't really fit into any of those categories (assuming I'm even
correct about *that*!)
Doug
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 17:21:35
That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in to the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard. Ian Mortimer gives some examples of day rates in 1400:
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 18:05
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Hilary Jones wrote:
"It's the last third of the year so roughly, as you say, from September. The
three terms at Oxbridge are still Michaelmas, Hilary (Jan to Mar) and
Trinity (summer)."
Doug here:
Basically then, a cash economy overlaid onto an agricultural one is the most
likely explanation then.
Indoor servants, or anyone else the employer provided food and lodging for,
would receive their wages once a year (what did they need cahs for?), those
with homes of their own (farm laborers?) would receive theirs at the end of
each quarter (after subtracting anything due to the landlord, if there *was*
anything due), and casual labor would be paid when the job, whatever it was,
was completed. Does leave shop owners (drapiers, etc) out on a limb though,
as they didn't really fit into any of those categories (assuming I'm even
correct about *that*!)
Doug
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 28 May 2013, 18:05
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Hilary Jones wrote:
"It's the last third of the year so roughly, as you say, from September. The
three terms at Oxbridge are still Michaelmas, Hilary (Jan to Mar) and
Trinity (summer)."
Doug here:
Basically then, a cash economy overlaid onto an agricultural one is the most
likely explanation then.
Indoor servants, or anyone else the employer provided food and lodging for,
would receive their wages once a year (what did they need cahs for?), those
with homes of their own (farm laborers?) would receive theirs at the end of
each quarter (after subtracting anything due to the landlord, if there *was*
anything due), and casual labor would be paid when the job, whatever it was,
was completed. Does leave shop owners (drapiers, etc) out on a limb though,
as they didn't really fit into any of those categories (assuming I'm even
correct about *that*!)
Doug
Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT Richard's Appearance)
2013-05-29 17:22:51
Claire wrote:
> [snip] I was thinking of writing to Foxhall anyway, about the shroud business. I'm sure you're right about that. Can you remember offhand what the name was of the dig where you saw other skeletons in a similar pose? [snip]
Carol responds:
It was only one skeleton--ironically, from another Leicester dig (Sanvey Gate). Though the position of the hands is very similar to Richard's, the archaeologists said nothing nothing about their being bound and concluded that the skeleton was buried in a shroud. Here's the link to the site, which you might want to bookmark:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html
Scroll down to the photo and caption under "Inside the Town." Here's the caption for that skeleton: "A single burial was excavated at Sanvey Gate, shown left. This was found just inside the defences, and adjacent to the line of the medieval street Torchmere. The burial was aligned east-west in the Christian manner, the hands and feet are very close together, and it seems likely that the body was buried in a shroud rather than a coffin. Although thought to be medieval, further work will be carried out to confirm this."
How they can draw such different conclusions about Richard's skeleton (also buried in the Christian manner--anyone know if it was aligned east-west?) and the Sanvey Gate skeleton when the hand position is so similar (as is everything about the burial except Richard's too-short grave) is beyond my understanding.
Anyway, I'll be interested in any response you receive to this question.
Carol
> [snip] I was thinking of writing to Foxhall anyway, about the shroud business. I'm sure you're right about that. Can you remember offhand what the name was of the dig where you saw other skeletons in a similar pose? [snip]
Carol responds:
It was only one skeleton--ironically, from another Leicester dig (Sanvey Gate). Though the position of the hands is very similar to Richard's, the archaeologists said nothing nothing about their being bound and concluded that the skeleton was buried in a shroud. Here's the link to the site, which you might want to bookmark:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/medieval/sanvey_gate.html
Scroll down to the photo and caption under "Inside the Town." Here's the caption for that skeleton: "A single burial was excavated at Sanvey Gate, shown left. This was found just inside the defences, and adjacent to the line of the medieval street Torchmere. The burial was aligned east-west in the Christian manner, the hands and feet are very close together, and it seems likely that the body was buried in a shroud rather than a coffin. Although thought to be medieval, further work will be carried out to confirm this."
How they can draw such different conclusions about Richard's skeleton (also buried in the Christian manner--anyone know if it was aligned east-west?) and the Sanvey Gate skeleton when the hand position is so similar (as is everything about the burial except Richard's too-short grave) is beyond my understanding.
Anyway, I'll be interested in any response you receive to this question.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 17:31:36
From: Neil Trump
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
> difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
> English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
> my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
> take.
>
> Bit heavy for you then or afraid it doesn't align with your opinions?
I just find "foreign" words hard to process - like I said before, I once got
two percent in a Modern Greek exam. I imagine it's a bit how you or most of
the members on-list would feel about this:
"Classes that implement the Collection interface - including all classes
that implement the Set and List interfaces - are expected to have two
constructors: one that takes no argument, and creates an empty collection;
and one that takes any type of collection as an argument, and creates a new
collection with the same elements."
which is what I'm working on at present in between thinking about Richard.
To each their own.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I'm not sure if I *can* - not in the originals anyway. Unfortunately my
> difficulty with learning foreign languages seems to exstend to archaic
> English as well: a couple of lines of More or Croyland in the original and
> my brain starts tying itself in a knot. I even find Buck a bit hard to
> take.
>
> Bit heavy for you then or afraid it doesn't align with your opinions?
I just find "foreign" words hard to process - like I said before, I once got
two percent in a Modern Greek exam. I imagine it's a bit how you or most of
the members on-list would feel about this:
"Classes that implement the Collection interface - including all classes
that implement the Set and List interfaces - are expected to have two
constructors: one that takes no argument, and creates an empty collection;
and one that takes any type of collection as an argument, and creates a new
collection with the same elements."
which is what I'm working on at present in between thinking about Richard.
To each their own.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 19:06:09
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
> apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in
> to the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard.
Worse than that. If becoming an apprentice emant switching from day rates -
what for an apprentice? quarterly? - you'd have to have enough to tide you
over for the first quarter. Although I suppose if you were an apprentice
you'd get bed and board included?
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:21 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
> That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
> apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in
> to the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard.
Worse than that. If becoming an apprentice emant switching from day rates -
what for an apprentice? quarterly? - you'd have to have enough to tide you
over for the first quarter. Although I suppose if you were an apprentice
you'd get bed and board included?
Re: Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT Richard's Appearance)
2013-05-29 19:41:24
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:22 PM
Subject: Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT
Richard's Appearance)
> It was only one skeleton--ironically, from another Leicester dig (Sanvey
> Gate). Though the position of the hands is very similar to Richard's, the
> archaeologists said nothing nothing about their being bound and concluded
> that the skeleton was buried in a shroud. Here's the link to the site,
> which you might want to bookmark:
Ah, yes, that's the bunny. And - sorry, I see I already had it bookmarked.
But I have so many things bookmarked in the "Richard" folder that without
knowing what it was called I can't find it!
> How they can draw such different conclusions about Richard's skeleton
> (also buried in the Christian manner--anyone know if it was aligned
> east-west?)
Some months ago I downloaded a rather smudgy, low-resolution copy of a very
good map of the excavation, which appeared in the Hindu Times. As far as I
can make out from this Richard was buried with his feet to the east (which I
think is the right way round for a Christian burial), head to the west,
except that he's in line with the choir and the choir isn't completely
east-west, so he's turned a few degrees so his head is pointing very
slightly south of true west.
> and the Sanvey Gate skeleton when the hand position is so similar
Pretty much identical - the only difference is that Richard's legs were
(most likely, assuming they weren't just moved by later building works)
further apart. But that fits with somebody's idea (can't remember who,
sorry) that because the Greyfriars were a poor order he might have been
buried in a blanket or sack or other makeshift - and evidentaly rather
short - shroud, and with mine that the metal thing might be a nail or staple
used to pin such a makeshift shroud closed.
> (as is everything about the burial except Richard's too-short grave) is
> beyond my understanding.
I reckon this grave was short too. Look at that white thing on the right -
isn't that a bit of cranium, lying just where Richard's head lay?
Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive
leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was
buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with
Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him
afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in
Leicester rather than at Bosworth.
Or maybe burying people in short graves was just in vogue, for everybody, in
which case Richard's too-short grave isn't evidence of any disrespect.
> Anyway, I'll be interested in any response you receive to this question.
I'll let you know. I still have about two weeks of coaching my friend in
programming to do, and then once that's out of the way, if not before, I'll
consult with AJ and get on to this.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:22 PM
Subject: Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT
Richard's Appearance)
> It was only one skeleton--ironically, from another Leicester dig (Sanvey
> Gate). Though the position of the hands is very similar to Richard's, the
> archaeologists said nothing nothing about their being bound and concluded
> that the skeleton was buried in a shroud. Here's the link to the site,
> which you might want to bookmark:
Ah, yes, that's the bunny. And - sorry, I see I already had it bookmarked.
But I have so many things bookmarked in the "Richard" folder that without
knowing what it was called I can't find it!
> How they can draw such different conclusions about Richard's skeleton
> (also buried in the Christian manner--anyone know if it was aligned
> east-west?)
Some months ago I downloaded a rather smudgy, low-resolution copy of a very
good map of the excavation, which appeared in the Hindu Times. As far as I
can make out from this Richard was buried with his feet to the east (which I
think is the right way round for a Christian burial), head to the west,
except that he's in line with the choir and the choir isn't completely
east-west, so he's turned a few degrees so his head is pointing very
slightly south of true west.
> and the Sanvey Gate skeleton when the hand position is so similar
Pretty much identical - the only difference is that Richard's legs were
(most likely, assuming they weren't just moved by later building works)
further apart. But that fits with somebody's idea (can't remember who,
sorry) that because the Greyfriars were a poor order he might have been
buried in a blanket or sack or other makeshift - and evidentaly rather
short - shroud, and with mine that the metal thing might be a nail or staple
used to pin such a makeshift shroud closed.
> (as is everything about the burial except Richard's too-short grave) is
> beyond my understanding.
I reckon this grave was short too. Look at that white thing on the right -
isn't that a bit of cranium, lying just where Richard's head lay?
Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive
leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was
buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with
Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him
afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in
Leicester rather than at Bosworth.
Or maybe burying people in short graves was just in vogue, for everybody, in
which case Richard's too-short grave isn't evidence of any disrespect.
> Anyway, I'll be interested in any response you receive to this question.
I'll let you know. I still have about two weeks of coaching my friend in
programming to do, and then once that's out of the way, if not before, I'll
consult with AJ and get on to this.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 22:09:59
All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of earlier copies, so they're not really independent evidence. There is reversal, perhaps because artists used mirrors. In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked into the revere of Richard's gown.
I couldn't comment on the finger bones.
Marie
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> > it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> > know he would need assistance?
> >
> >
> > On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> > was
> > > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> > and
> > > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> > the
> > > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> > about
> > > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> > good
> > > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> > >
> > > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> > little
> > > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I couldn't comment on the finger bones.
Marie
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
>
> This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> > it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> > know he would need assistance?
> >
> >
> > On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > >
> > > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> > was
> > > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> > and
> > > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> > the
> > > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> > about
> > > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> > good
> > > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> > >
> > > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> > little
> > > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-29 22:23:56
--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. The sweating sickness KILLED within hours of onset. The notion that Richard could have donned armour and led a cavalry charge whilst suffering from it is just not credible.
Marie
>
> Claire wrote:
> > It occurs to me that if the translation is accurate, and if there's any
> > truth in it, it might mean that Richard was ill specifically at Bosworth,
> > rather than that he was ill generally. If he went into battle suffering
> > from the 'flu' or similar and running a fever, it would explain both the
> > claim that he didn't eat breakfast and the fatal recklessness of his final
> > charge - especially since the only treatments available would probably be
> > bleeding or opium, neither of which would do a lot for his mental clarity.
>
>
> Weds writes:
> John Ashdown-Hill acovered this in his "Last Days of R3"...speculating that if Stanley actually had the sweating sickness he claimed in his missive to Richard while the former was still at Nottingham ("I'm sick, can't appear at your muster"), then Stanley's messenger may have passed the illness on to Richard, and he may indeed have been ill at Bosworth.
>
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. The sweating sickness KILLED within hours of onset. The notion that Richard could have donned armour and led a cavalry charge whilst suffering from it is just not credible.
Marie
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 00:05:23
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> earlier copies,
All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
(and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
(and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
portrait.
> In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> into the revere of Richard's gown.
If you mean the Royal Collection one, the one that's been forkled about with
to make him look more sinister, that's not actually correct. It's his
*thumb* which is tucked into the revere - whereas the copyist who worked on
the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
instead.
In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
seems to be a stump. And I take Carol's point that if his finger had been
congenitally deformed it would have been commented on, so if his finger was
indeed as short as it's portrayed my money would be on "stump", especially
in view of AJ's comments.
There is a version of this portrait somewhere which shows his little finger
as normal length (tending to abnormally long!) and folded under, but it's
one of those rather peculiar copy-of-copy-of-copy ones, so it looks as if
it's just an attempt to rationalise what the copyist was looking at. And
this one
http://www.myartprints.co.uk/a/english-school/portrait-of-king-richard.html
has a long straight little finger - but all his fingers look a bit like
tentacles in that one.
Btw I wonder if the last one could be the origin of the idea (mentioned a
couplke of days ago) that he had a deformed left hand? In none of these
NPG/RC sequence portraits is his left hand very well-drawn, but in the
"English school" portrait it's also been grotesquely enlarged until it's
almost as big as his head.
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> earlier copies,
All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
(and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
(and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
portrait.
> In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> into the revere of Richard's gown.
If you mean the Royal Collection one, the one that's been forkled about with
to make him look more sinister, that's not actually correct. It's his
*thumb* which is tucked into the revere - whereas the copyist who worked on
the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
instead.
In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
seems to be a stump. And I take Carol's point that if his finger had been
congenitally deformed it would have been commented on, so if his finger was
indeed as short as it's portrayed my money would be on "stump", especially
in view of AJ's comments.
There is a version of this portrait somewhere which shows his little finger
as normal length (tending to abnormally long!) and folded under, but it's
one of those rather peculiar copy-of-copy-of-copy ones, so it looks as if
it's just an attempt to rationalise what the copyist was looking at. And
this one
http://www.myartprints.co.uk/a/english-school/portrait-of-king-richard.html
has a long straight little finger - but all his fingers look a bit like
tentacles in that one.
Btw I wonder if the last one could be the origin of the idea (mentioned a
couplke of days ago) that he had a deformed left hand? In none of these
NPG/RC sequence portraits is his left hand very well-drawn, but in the
"English school" portrait it's also been grotesquely enlarged until it's
almost as big as his head.
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 00:06:44
Well said! My thoughts are that even a 'weak' medieval man could kick the average modern man's ass. I wouldn't have liked to have faced Richard in a battle!
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Enough already. I don’t care who said what in Latin, a wimp Richard was not. Slender, delicate-looking and perhaps beyond attractive with that face and long hair, but a crippled weakling? Nope. He frightened the hell out of the opposition at Bosworth, and he wouldn’t do that if he was little more than a doll strapped on a horse. To be that much of a girl would surely render him hard put to walk in armour, let alone fight in it. As for wielding a sword, lance or anything else while riding... Forget it. AND he’d have a dirty great helmet weighing on his poor frail neck? He’d have needed assistance to wear his crown at the coronation! And would all those big, butch, nasty 15th century nobles really support and fight for a peculiar little manikin who reminded them of their little sister? I’m miffed. Sorry. No offence meant. I’ll be civil again come the morning.
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 00:34:24
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> > earlier copies,
>
> All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
> portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
> (and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
> (and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
> portrait.
Not according to Geoffrey Wheeler, who has written most on the subject. The clothes are different in the Antiquaries version, but that was probably done to match them with Edward IV's gear in his portrait, presumably because copies of both were to be displayed together.
Marie
>
> > In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> > into the revere of Richard's gown.
>
> If you mean the Royal Collection one,
Yes, it's often referred to as the Windsor portrait.
Marie
the one that's been forkled about with
> to make him look more sinister,
They've all been 'forkled about with'. Personally I don't think it looks at all sinister - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Marie
that's not actually correct. It's his
> *thumb* which is tucked into the revere
It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
Marie
- whereas the copyist who worked on
> the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
> instead.
>
> In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
> extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
> deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
> seems to be a stump.
The hands are poorly executed in all the extant copies (and hands are, after all, the most difficult part of the body to draw well), so it would be unwise to read too much into the very slight oddity of the little fingers. The top of the little finger is covered by the thumb (I think) of the other hand, which is holding the ring, and in the Windsor portrait the little finger does not look so short relative to the fourth finger. Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG portrait as so significant?
Msrie
>
> From: mariewalsh2003
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> > earlier copies,
>
> All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
> portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
> (and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
> (and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
> portrait.
Not according to Geoffrey Wheeler, who has written most on the subject. The clothes are different in the Antiquaries version, but that was probably done to match them with Edward IV's gear in his portrait, presumably because copies of both were to be displayed together.
Marie
>
> > In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> > into the revere of Richard's gown.
>
> If you mean the Royal Collection one,
Yes, it's often referred to as the Windsor portrait.
Marie
the one that's been forkled about with
> to make him look more sinister,
They've all been 'forkled about with'. Personally I don't think it looks at all sinister - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Marie
that's not actually correct. It's his
> *thumb* which is tucked into the revere
It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
Marie
- whereas the copyist who worked on
> the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
> instead.
>
> In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
> extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
> deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
> seems to be a stump.
The hands are poorly executed in all the extant copies (and hands are, after all, the most difficult part of the body to draw well), so it would be unwise to read too much into the very slight oddity of the little fingers. The top of the little finger is covered by the thumb (I think) of the other hand, which is holding the ring, and in the Windsor portrait the little finger does not look so short relative to the fourth finger. Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG portrait as so significant?
Msrie
Re: Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT Richard's Appearance)
2013-05-30 00:47:37
Claire wrote:
> Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in Leicester rather than at Bosworth. [snip]
Carol responds:
I don't know whether they've identified that body, but I don't think it had anything to do with Bosworth. Here's a bit more on the Sanvay Gate dig:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/projects/sanvey_gate.html
I don't think the site has been updated recently, but the dig seems to have been completed in 2005. There's also a page with links to medieval, Saxon, and Roman Leicester:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/index.html
Odd that with so many projects going on, it never occurred to them to look for Grey Friars (much less Richard) till Philippa came along.
Carol
> Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in Leicester rather than at Bosworth. [snip]
Carol responds:
I don't know whether they've identified that body, but I don't think it had anything to do with Bosworth. Here's a bit more on the Sanvay Gate dig:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/projects/sanvey_gate.html
I don't think the site has been updated recently, but the dig seems to have been completed in 2005. There's also a page with links to medieval, Saxon, and Roman Leicester:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/index.html
Odd that with so many projects going on, it never occurred to them to look for Grey Friars (much less Richard) till Philippa came along.
Carol
Re: Hand position in the grave (Was: NOT Richard's Appearance)
2013-05-30 01:09:39
Another colossal overlook from the academicians! As Eileen would say "doh"!
On May 29, 2013, at 6:47 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Claire wrote:
> Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in Leicester rather than at Bosworth. [snip]
Carol responds:
I don't know whether they've identified that body, but I don't think it had anything to do with Bosworth. Here's a bit more on the Sanvay Gate dig:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/projects/sanvey_gate.html
I don't think the site has been updated recently, but the dig seems to have been completed in 2005. There's also a page with links to medieval, Saxon, and Roman Leicester:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/index.html
Odd that with so many projects going on, it never occurred to them to look for Grey Friars (much less Richard) till Philippa came along.
Carol
On May 29, 2013, at 6:47 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Claire wrote:
> Huh - did they ever date this guy (surely must be a guy, with those massive leg-bones) conclusively? Maybe he too was a dead Yorkist officer who was buried in haste. Maybe even the standard bearer who was brought in with Richard's body - we know he made it to Leicester and there's no sign of him afterwards, so he's one candidate for a Yorkist who might have died in Leicester rather than at Bosworth. [snip]
Carol responds:
I don't know whether they've identified that body, but I don't think it had anything to do with Bosworth. Here's a bit more on the Sanvay Gate dig:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/projects/sanvey_gate.html
I don't think the site has been updated recently, but the dig seems to have been completed in 2005. There's also a page with links to medieval, Saxon, and Roman Leicester:
http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/regeneration/index.html
Odd that with so many projects going on, it never occurred to them to look for Grey Friars (much less Richard) till Philippa came along.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 06:04:59
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the
> index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
Marie
Yes, I see what you mean now - but we're talking about his *little* finger,
the one he's putting the ring on.
> Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG
> portrait as so significant?
On its own it would only be mildly suggestive. But given that part of that
finger is missing from the skeleton *and* what isn't missing looks damaged
to a trained radiologist, as if the end of his finger was missing in life,
it gains new potential significance.
Unfortunately the resolution of the photographs of his bones isn't great,
but in a few weeks when I've finished with the tutoring in Object Oriented
Programming, I'll write to Foxhall about Carol's shroud theory and also see
if she could be persuaded to actually look at the bone and see if it really
is damaged at the end, as it appears to AJ in the photo'.
Btw, even though the NPG portrait was painted later than the RC one, because
the skin-tone is so much more convincing and detailed than in the RC one I
would think it's a separate copy from the original, not a 2nd generation
copy from RC.
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the
> index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
Marie
Yes, I see what you mean now - but we're talking about his *little* finger,
the one he's putting the ring on.
> Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG
> portrait as so significant?
On its own it would only be mildly suggestive. But given that part of that
finger is missing from the skeleton *and* what isn't missing looks damaged
to a trained radiologist, as if the end of his finger was missing in life,
it gains new potential significance.
Unfortunately the resolution of the photographs of his bones isn't great,
but in a few weeks when I've finished with the tutoring in Object Oriented
Programming, I'll write to Foxhall about Carol's shroud theory and also see
if she could be persuaded to actually look at the bone and see if it really
is damaged at the end, as it appears to AJ in the photo'.
Btw, even though the NPG portrait was painted later than the RC one, because
the skin-tone is so much more convincing and detailed than in the RC one I
would think it's a separate copy from the original, not a 2nd generation
copy from RC.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 09:54:44
I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the portraits people look at.
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of earlier copies, so they're not really independent evidence. There is reversal, perhaps because artists used mirrors. In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked into the revere of Richard's gown.
> I couldn't comment on the finger bones.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> > This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> > of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> > is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> > the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> > broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> > Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> > Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> > the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> > > it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> > > know he would need assistance?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> > > was
> > > > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> > > and
> > > > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> > > the
> > > > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> > > about
> > > > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> > > good
> > > > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> > > >
> > > > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> > > little
> > > > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > > > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of earlier copies, so they're not really independent evidence. There is reversal, perhaps because artists used mirrors. In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked into the revere of Richard's gown.
> I couldn't comment on the finger bones.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > The right hand is missing the distal 2 phalanges of the little finger.
> > This might be disappearance after death over the centuries, since only one
> > of the terminal phalanges of any fingers is present & the terminal phalanx
> > is also missing for the left thumb. But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand. These suggest to me that either part of his finger
> > was missing congenitally, or the very tip of the remaining bone was
> > reshaped during healing after a traumatic loss of the end of his finger.
> >
> > This appears to be confirmed by the existing portraits where we do not see
> > the tip of Richard's right little finger, because it is folded under (the
> > broken-sword portrait), he is fiddling with a ring (National Portrait
> > Gallery portrait) or it just isn't there (Royal Collection, Windsor).
> > Although the latter makes me wonder if the entire image is reversed because
> > the little finger of the left hand appears to stop too soon.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Neil Trump <neil.trump@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Where is it cited that he lost part of his finger and who by and where is
> > > it documented that he was a bit stiff in the upper torso and how would you
> > > know he would need assistance?
> > >
> > >
> > > On 28 May 2013, at 17:07, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Pamela Bain
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:49 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: NOT Richard's Appearance
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, I have wondered about that myself. I thought maybe the codpiece
> > > was
> > > > > just some piece of protective clothing, you could flip up, or over,
> > > and
> > > > > get on with the business at hand, as it were! Yes the mind boggles as
> > > the
> > > > > communal latrines, but we have to remove our 20th/21st Century ideas
> > > about
> > > > > bathing, cleanliness, modesty and communal whatevers! I confess to a
> > > good
> > > > > giggle about the knots, and turning to ask for help.
> > > >
> > > > Richard in particular, since he seems to have lost part of his right
> > > little
> > > > finger and was probably also a bit stiff in the upper torso department,
> > > > would probably have required assistance with his string....
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Legends and truth
2013-05-30 10:15:15
We all know how the legends about Richard have caught the public attention.
Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
the Impaler made an appearance.
When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
Bram Stoker.
When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
the Impaler made an appearance.
When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
Bram Stoker.
When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 10:40:59
If the missing bit' has simply been lost in the grave, why then, as AJ has said, does the following seem to apply? -
> > But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand.
> >
I'm no expert, and as an amateur must judge by what I see and deduce from the skeleton. On that understanding, I feel sure the little finger of Richard's right hand was shortened by trauma at some time in his life, long enough before death for the distal phalanx to have altered shape. I'll need undeniable proof to the contrary before I'll change my mind. Given the foregoing, I believe the NPG portrait to depict Richard's hands correctly. OK, it isn't the earliest picture, but it still might have been painted by someone with knowledge of what Richard's hands were like. Word of mouth, perhaps. Whatever, I stand by the little finger, so to speak.
Oh, and BTW, in the NPG portrait, Richard's shave was far closer than Henry VII's NPG likeness. Henry has five o'clock shadow! No Gillette back then.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg Perhaps that's why he looks so mean-tempered his barber was late!
Sandra
From: christineholmes651@...
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
> > But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand.
> >
I'm no expert, and as an amateur must judge by what I see and deduce from the skeleton. On that understanding, I feel sure the little finger of Richard's right hand was shortened by trauma at some time in his life, long enough before death for the distal phalanx to have altered shape. I'll need undeniable proof to the contrary before I'll change my mind. Given the foregoing, I believe the NPG portrait to depict Richard's hands correctly. OK, it isn't the earliest picture, but it still might have been painted by someone with knowledge of what Richard's hands were like. Word of mouth, perhaps. Whatever, I stand by the little finger, so to speak.
Oh, and BTW, in the NPG portrait, Richard's shave was far closer than Henry VII's NPG likeness. Henry has five o'clock shadow! No Gillette back then.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg Perhaps that's why he looks so mean-tempered his barber was late!
Sandra
From: christineholmes651@...
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To:
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 10:45:51
Erm, sorry, the link should be http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
If the missing bit' has simply been lost in the grave, why then, as AJ has said, does the following seem to apply? -
> > But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand.
> >
I'm no expert, and as an amateur must judge by what I see and deduce from the skeleton. On that understanding, I feel sure the little finger of Richard's right hand was shortened by trauma at some time in his life, long enough before death for the distal phalanx to have altered shape. I'll need undeniable proof to the contrary before I'll change my mind. Given the foregoing, I believe the NPG portrait to depict Richard's hands correctly. OK, it isn't the earliest picture, but it still might have been painted by someone with knowledge of what Richard's hands were like. Word of mouth, perhaps. Whatever, I stand by the little finger, so to speak.
Oh, and BTW, in the NPG portrait, Richard's shave was far closer than Henry VII's NPG likeness. Henry has five o'clock shadow! No Gillette back http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg Perhaps that's why he looks so mean-tempered his barber was late!
Sandra
From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
From: SandraMachin
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:40 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
If the missing bit' has simply been lost in the grave, why then, as AJ has said, does the following seem to apply? -
> > But the shape of the remaining most
> > distal phalanx is slightly different than the corresponding bone on the
> > other hand & appears to be proportionately shorter than the corresponding
> > bone in the other hand.
> >
I'm no expert, and as an amateur must judge by what I see and deduce from the skeleton. On that understanding, I feel sure the little finger of Richard's right hand was shortened by trauma at some time in his life, long enough before death for the distal phalanx to have altered shape. I'll need undeniable proof to the contrary before I'll change my mind. Given the foregoing, I believe the NPG portrait to depict Richard's hands correctly. OK, it isn't the earliest picture, but it still might have been painted by someone with knowledge of what Richard's hands were like. Word of mouth, perhaps. Whatever, I stand by the little finger, so to speak.
Oh, and BTW, in the NPG portrait, Richard's shave was far closer than Henry VII's NPG likeness. Henry has five o'clock shadow! No Gillette back http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg Perhaps that's why he looks so mean-tempered his barber was late!
Sandra
From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Re: Legends and truth
2013-05-30 10:46:25
There are two modern western movies which, in a satiric vein, show how this
sort of distortion can be created: _From Noon Till Three_, which I'll say
little about because I can't spoil the plot; and _Cat Ballou_, which
juxtaposes the main plot of Cat with Stubby Kaye and Nat "King" Cole
singing a ballad which transforms the innocent would-be teacher into a born
killer with the eyes of an angel, and an alcoholic gunman into "the fastest
gun you've ever seen". The ballad is catchy, fun, and wonderfully
harmonized by Cole and Kaye (I think it was Nat "Kin"g Cole's last movie
before he died), and a Ricardian can take this as a lesson in how
attractive art can create a legend.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> We all know how the legends about Richard have caught the public attention.
> Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
> enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
> the Impaler made an appearance.
> When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
> titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
> his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
> Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
> made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
> the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
> single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
> Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
> scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
> enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
> surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
> into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
> Bram Stoker.
> When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
> WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
sort of distortion can be created: _From Noon Till Three_, which I'll say
little about because I can't spoil the plot; and _Cat Ballou_, which
juxtaposes the main plot of Cat with Stubby Kaye and Nat "King" Cole
singing a ballad which transforms the innocent would-be teacher into a born
killer with the eyes of an angel, and an alcoholic gunman into "the fastest
gun you've ever seen". The ballad is catchy, fun, and wonderfully
harmonized by Cole and Kaye (I think it was Nat "Kin"g Cole's last movie
before he died), and a Ricardian can take this as a lesson in how
attractive art can create a legend.
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> We all know how the legends about Richard have caught the public attention.
> Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
> enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
> the Impaler made an appearance.
> When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
> titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
> his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
> Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
> made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
> the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
> single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
> Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
> scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
> enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
> surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
> into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
> Bram Stoker.
> When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
> WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
> Paul
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
Re: Legends and truth
2013-05-30 11:40:36
All the more reason why, we all hope, your screen play makes it! Such a wonderful take on Hillary Man, as well as added information about Vlad the Impaler.
On May 30, 2013, at 4:15 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
We all know how the legends about Richard have caught the public attention.
Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
the Impaler made an appearance.
When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
Bram Stoker.
When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
On May 30, 2013, at 4:15 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:
We all know how the legends about Richard have caught the public attention.
Just to prove he isn't alone, I've just watched an episode of the hugely
enjoyable, though I shouldn't admit it, Da Vinci's Demons, in which Vlad
the Impaler made an appearance.
When Da Vinci meets him he calls him by all his correct names and
titles, ending with "Your father was Vlad Drakul, which makes you, as
his son," CUT TO CLOSE UP "DRAKULA!"
Well that actually is true, but then we are told he has forsaken God and
made a pact with the devil! Vlad in reality was a lifelong supporter of
the Church and died defending it, a buffer against the Turks he almost
single handedly prevented Europe being overrun by the Ottoman Empire.
Next we are told he has been struck by lightning, leaving his face
scarred and his eyes cold [nice contacts make up man]. At dinner he
enjoys watching a man being torn apart by dogs, and his castle is
surrounded by a forest of impaled bodies. This of course has made him
into the monster of fiction and will perpetuate the legend invented by
Bram Stoker.
When The White Queen is shown I fear that all the old legends about the
WOTR and Richard will be repeated and perpetuated yet again.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 14:38:39
Claire
I fear you are moving into the world of semantics regarding your theory on the portraits and are getting carried away. Symbolism in art has a long and distinguished history but even the experts can only give their interpretation of the facts as they see it. We do not know and cannot tell, with hindsight, what the artist, or copyist if you prefer, was trying to suggest and in addition, does not take into account the skill of the artist or artists who may simply have not been very good at painting hands! Both the Society of Antiquaries' portraits were believed to have been created as a pair and the wood has been identified as coming from the same tree in Germany I believe. Therefore, as Marie points out citing Geoffrey Wheeler, they could have been designed to complement each other which would account for the differences in decoration between the SoA portrait and the others, particularly the NPG portrait and copies of that portrait.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > > All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> > > earlier copies,
> >
> > All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
> > portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
> > (and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
> > (and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
> > portrait.
>
> Not according to Geoffrey Wheeler, who has written most on the subject. The clothes are different in the Antiquaries version, but that was probably done to match them with Edward IV's gear in his portrait, presumably because copies of both were to be displayed together.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > > In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> > > into the revere of Richard's gown.
> >
> > If you mean the Royal Collection one,
>
> Yes, it's often referred to as the Windsor portrait.
> Marie
>
> the one that's been forkled about with
> > to make him look more sinister,
>
> They've all been 'forkled about with'. Personally I don't think it looks at all sinister - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
> Marie
>
> that's not actually correct. It's his
> > *thumb* which is tucked into the revere
>
> It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
> Marie
>
>
> - whereas the copyist who worked on
> > the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
> > instead.
> >
> > In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
> > extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
> > deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
> > seems to be a stump.
>
> The hands are poorly executed in all the extant copies (and hands are, after all, the most difficult part of the body to draw well), so it would be unwise to read too much into the very slight oddity of the little fingers. The top of the little finger is covered by the thumb (I think) of the other hand, which is holding the ring, and in the Windsor portrait the little finger does not look so short relative to the fourth finger. Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG portrait as so significant?
> Msrie
>
I fear you are moving into the world of semantics regarding your theory on the portraits and are getting carried away. Symbolism in art has a long and distinguished history but even the experts can only give their interpretation of the facts as they see it. We do not know and cannot tell, with hindsight, what the artist, or copyist if you prefer, was trying to suggest and in addition, does not take into account the skill of the artist or artists who may simply have not been very good at painting hands! Both the Society of Antiquaries' portraits were believed to have been created as a pair and the wood has been identified as coming from the same tree in Germany I believe. Therefore, as Marie points out citing Geoffrey Wheeler, they could have been designed to complement each other which would account for the differences in decoration between the SoA portrait and the others, particularly the NPG portrait and copies of that portrait.
Elaine
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: mariewalsh2003
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:09 PM
> > Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> >
> >
> > > All the portraits are copies either of a single lost original or of
> > > earlier copies,
> >
> > All the NPG/RC sequence and their descendants come from one original
> > portrait, but because the handling of the collar is so completely different
> > (and so much more realistic) in the SoA one I would have thought that it
> > (and its descendant the man with broken sword) derive from a different
> > portrait.
>
> Not according to Geoffrey Wheeler, who has written most on the subject. The clothes are different in the Antiquaries version, but that was probably done to match them with Edward IV's gear in his portrait, presumably because copies of both were to be displayed together.
> Marie
>
>
> >
> > > In the Windsor portrait the tip of the finger isn't missing, just tucked
> > > into the revere of Richard's gown.
> >
> > If you mean the Royal Collection one,
>
> Yes, it's often referred to as the Windsor portrait.
> Marie
>
> the one that's been forkled about with
> > to make him look more sinister,
>
> They've all been 'forkled about with'. Personally I don't think it looks at all sinister - it's all in the eye of the beholder.
> Marie
>
> that's not actually correct. It's his
> > *thumb* which is tucked into the revere
>
> It is actually correct. The thumb is tucked into the neck opening and the index finger into (ie behind) the revere.
> Marie
>
>
> - whereas the copyist who worked on
> > the NPG one misinterpreted this and gave him a weirdly pointed thumb
> > instead.
> >
> > In both the NPG and RC portraits his right little finger is shown as
> > extremely short. The RC one draws a fingernail on the end, as if it's a
> > deformed finger; the NPG one has no sign of a fingernail that I can see and
> > seems to be a stump.
>
> The hands are poorly executed in all the extant copies (and hands are, after all, the most difficult part of the body to draw well), so it would be unwise to read too much into the very slight oddity of the little fingers. The top of the little finger is covered by the thumb (I think) of the other hand, which is holding the ring, and in the Windsor portrait the little finger does not look so short relative to the fourth finger. Why take the lack of the bottom of the fingernail in the (later) NPG portrait as so significant?
> Msrie
>
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 16:19:29
Hilary Jones wrote:
"That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in to
the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard. Ian Mortimer gives some
examples of day rates in 1400:
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but
the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval
England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's
only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)"
Doug here:
"Two thirds of this went on food."
Yikes! Well, now we know why the English were known as being the best-fed in
Europe!
Thanks for the reccomendation, I've added to my (ever-expanding) list of
books to read/acquire, but it looks as if it'll be a "keeper".
Doug
(whose credit card, between "keepers" re RIII and Dr. Who dvds, is cowering
in the corner)
"That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in to
the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard. Ian Mortimer gives some
examples of day rates in 1400:
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but
the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval
England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's
only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)"
Doug here:
"Two thirds of this went on food."
Yikes! Well, now we know why the English were known as being the best-fed in
Europe!
Thanks for the reccomendation, I've added to my (ever-expanding) list of
books to read/acquire, but it looks as if it'll be a "keeper".
Doug
(whose credit card, between "keepers" re RIII and Dr. Who dvds, is cowering
in the corner)
Re: Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 16:36:52
Food was comparatively very expensive. We didn't really up food production till the argarian revolution. And in the late 1400s more land was gradually being given over to sheep for wool (yes I know but ewe's meet is a bit tough). The lovely Reggie Bray raised a village in my area to put to sheep.
PS That's why you seem to see all the peasants dressed in clothes from 1066 - they must have been hand-me-downs.
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Hilary Jones wrote:
"That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in to
the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard. Ian Mortimer gives some
examples of day rates in 1400:
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but
the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval
England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's
only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)"
Doug here:
"Two thirds of this went on food."
Yikes! Well, now we know why the English were known as being the best-fed in
Europe!
Thanks for the reccomendation, I've added to my (ever-expanding) list of
books to read/acquire, but it looks as if it'll be a "keeper".
Doug
(whose credit card, between "keepers" re RIII and Dr. Who dvds, is cowering
in the corner)
PS That's why you seem to see all the peasants dressed in clothes from 1066 - they must have been hand-me-downs.
________________________________
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 29 May 2013, 17:21
Subject: Re: Richard's Appearance
Hilary Jones wrote:
"That's a good question. It's day rates for all generally unless you are an
apprentice. But to be an apprentice you have to have the money to buy in to
the Guild (about £3), so upward mobility was hard. Ian Mortimer gives some
examples of day rates in 1400:
carpenter 41/2d (that's fourpence halfpenny) labourer 3 1/4d, mason 6d - but
the rates varied with the daylight hours! Two thirds of this went on food.
I really would recommend Ian Mortimer's 'Timetravellers Guide to Medieval
England' - it's great for things like this (and has a lot on clothes). It's
only cheap and fun to read.
(BTW the names of the 'terms' come from the legal calendar)"
Doug here:
"Two thirds of this went on food."
Yikes! Well, now we know why the English were known as being the best-fed in
Europe!
Thanks for the reccomendation, I've added to my (ever-expanding) list of
books to read/acquire, but it looks as if it'll be a "keeper".
Doug
(whose credit card, between "keepers" re RIII and Dr. Who dvds, is cowering
in the corner)
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 17:04:34
Claire wrote:
> [snip] Btw, even though the NPG portrait was painted later than the RC one, because the skin-tone is so much more convincing and detailed than in the RC one I would think it's a separate copy from the original, not a 2nd generation copy from RC.
Carol responds:
I agree with you on this, not so much because of the skin tone as because we know, thanks to the facial reconstruction, that it actually looks like Richard--as the RC portrait does not. (I would like to see the RC portrait stripped of its alterations, but I don't suppose that will happen given that it belongs to the royal family. With the exception of Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent, none of them seems to have much interest in the real Richard III. Perhaps they're happy with their ugly, fifty-something Richard, thinking that it fairly represents the wicked old usurper they imagine him to have been (just as they think that the bones in the urn belong to the "Princes" and don't want them disturbed).
But to return to the point, I think that Geoffrey Wheeler is correct in making the RC portrait the basis for most of the later portraits, which become more and more distorted the later they're painted, I agree with Claire that the NPG portrait *seems* to be copied directly from the lost original (which would have had Richard dressed in black velvet rather than cloth of gold) and which would have resembled him much more closely than the RC portrait does--unless, of course, someone had a chance to copy it before Henry VIII forced the artist to uglify it.
I am, of course, no authority on art and am basing my judgment only on the resemblance of the NPG portrait to the reconstructed Richard.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_QizSI3iq8/URFkhlhnlnI/AAAAAAAAAC0/yQPvZPJdeS8/s400/richardIII.jpg
and
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1EfvAlf97zs53u-4pxt_igC0sFLwqK6rUgooTs74jwCKeUu0K
I thought that we had a photo of the NPG portrait superimposed on the reconstruction (or vice versa) in our Files or Photos section, but I can't find it. Still, the resemblance is uncanny given that the reconstructors didn't refer to the NPG portrait until they reached the hair and clothing stage. If they had used the RC portrait as reference, they would probably have thought that their unknown man was someone else, certainly a whole lot older than thirty-two.
Carol
> [snip] Btw, even though the NPG portrait was painted later than the RC one, because the skin-tone is so much more convincing and detailed than in the RC one I would think it's a separate copy from the original, not a 2nd generation copy from RC.
Carol responds:
I agree with you on this, not so much because of the skin tone as because we know, thanks to the facial reconstruction, that it actually looks like Richard--as the RC portrait does not. (I would like to see the RC portrait stripped of its alterations, but I don't suppose that will happen given that it belongs to the royal family. With the exception of Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Prince Michael of Kent, none of them seems to have much interest in the real Richard III. Perhaps they're happy with their ugly, fifty-something Richard, thinking that it fairly represents the wicked old usurper they imagine him to have been (just as they think that the bones in the urn belong to the "Princes" and don't want them disturbed).
But to return to the point, I think that Geoffrey Wheeler is correct in making the RC portrait the basis for most of the later portraits, which become more and more distorted the later they're painted, I agree with Claire that the NPG portrait *seems* to be copied directly from the lost original (which would have had Richard dressed in black velvet rather than cloth of gold) and which would have resembled him much more closely than the RC portrait does--unless, of course, someone had a chance to copy it before Henry VIII forced the artist to uglify it.
I am, of course, no authority on art and am basing my judgment only on the resemblance of the NPG portrait to the reconstructed Richard.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5_QizSI3iq8/URFkhlhnlnI/AAAAAAAAAC0/yQPvZPJdeS8/s400/richardIII.jpg
and
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1EfvAlf97zs53u-4pxt_igC0sFLwqK6rUgooTs74jwCKeUu0K
I thought that we had a photo of the NPG portrait superimposed on the reconstruction (or vice versa) in our Files or Photos section, but I can't find it. Still, the resemblance is uncanny given that the reconstructors didn't refer to the NPG portrait until they reached the hair and clothing stage. If they had used the RC portrait as reference, they would probably have thought that their unknown man was someone else, certainly a whole lot older than thirty-two.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 17:05:04
From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard
> his top segment of his little finger is not missing.
Yes, it does appear to be missing to me - although I would have said that in
the portrait there's more present than in his skeleton. It looks like just
the nail phalanx and maybe part of the middle one is missing. Either way,
his little finger is shown as only about half the length of his ring finger.
> I tried it with a magnifying glass.
I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of the
NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
> It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the
> portraits people look at.
The National Portrait Gallery's highest-resolution offering.
> Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told
> me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand,
Did you quote him AJ's observations as a radiologist?
> he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about
> the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet
Ah, thanks, that answers that question. I said before that I'd read in a
novel (probably in Fortune's Wheel) that Richard's arm was injured in a
battle and I didn't know whether the writer had made it up or whether they
were deriving it from a genuine source, and it seems it's the latter.
> but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's
> involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the
> grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst
> previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Could be, yes. But the remaining bone looks abnormal - and they perhaps
haven't had the opinion of a trained radiologist.
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard
> his top segment of his little finger is not missing.
Yes, it does appear to be missing to me - although I would have said that in
the portrait there's more present than in his skeleton. It looks like just
the nail phalanx and maybe part of the middle one is missing. Either way,
his little finger is shown as only about half the length of his ring finger.
> I tried it with a magnifying glass.
I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of the
NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
> It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the
> portraits people look at.
The National Portrait Gallery's highest-resolution offering.
> Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told
> me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand,
Did you quote him AJ's observations as a radiologist?
> he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about
> the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet
Ah, thanks, that answers that question. I said before that I'd read in a
novel (probably in Fortune's Wheel) that Richard's arm was injured in a
battle and I didn't know whether the writer had made it up or whether they
were deriving it from a genuine source, and it seems it's the latter.
> but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's
> involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the
> grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst
> previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Could be, yes. But the remaining bone looks abnormal - and they perhaps
haven't had the opinion of a trained radiologist.
Re: Legends and truth
2013-05-30 17:07:15
From: "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Legends and truth
> There are two modern western movies which, in a satiric vein, show how
> this
> sort of distortion can be created:
I can see it happening also in what is currently my own field of research,
i.e. special ops in Burma during WW2.
There's a very good book called The Raiders of Arakan, about the activities
of a V-Force officer called Denis Holmes. It describes one of Holmes's
local Arakanese Moslem aides, a guy who had a somewhat sinister reputation
and nickname (which I forget) because he had actually murdered somebody a
few years beforehand, but who was a very jolly, chatty bloke who was very
good at getting people to open up and chat back.
In Raiders it's said that this chatty murderer was very good at
interrogating suspects. It doesn't say how or why but the context is such
that it strongly implies that it was because of his conviviality, his
ability to get people to gossip with him.
However, I came across a second, later book which referred to and
paraphrased this passage from Raiders. Again, it still doesn't specify how
or why the chatty murderer was so good at interrogating suspects - but now
it's phrased in a way which strongly implies that he tortured them :(
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: Legends and truth
> There are two modern western movies which, in a satiric vein, show how
> this
> sort of distortion can be created:
I can see it happening also in what is currently my own field of research,
i.e. special ops in Burma during WW2.
There's a very good book called The Raiders of Arakan, about the activities
of a V-Force officer called Denis Holmes. It describes one of Holmes's
local Arakanese Moslem aides, a guy who had a somewhat sinister reputation
and nickname (which I forget) because he had actually murdered somebody a
few years beforehand, but who was a very jolly, chatty bloke who was very
good at getting people to open up and chat back.
In Raiders it's said that this chatty murderer was very good at
interrogating suspects. It doesn't say how or why but the context is such
that it strongly implies that it was because of his conviviality, his
ability to get people to gossip with him.
However, I came across a second, later book which referred to and
paraphrased this passage from Raiders. Again, it still doesn't specify how
or why the chatty murderer was so good at interrogating suspects - but now
it's phrased in a way which strongly implies that he tortured them :(
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 17:07:58
From: "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of
> the NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
Incidentally - for those to whom 58 pixels is meaningless, it means you can
enlarge the image onscreen until his finger is 3½" wide (that's half again
as wide as the fat tube in the centre of a roll of kitchen towel) before it
starts to go grainy.
A few years ago I laboriously went all over the NPG's
selectively-magnifiable digital image, enlarging it as far as it would go to
get a series of very high-resolution sections and then stitching them all
back together to get a version of the portrait which is 2490 pixels wide
(standard images you see on screen are usually about 600). If anyone wants
a copy let me know.
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of
> the NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
Incidentally - for those to whom 58 pixels is meaningless, it means you can
enlarge the image onscreen until his finger is 3½" wide (that's half again
as wide as the fat tube in the centre of a roll of kitchen towel) before it
starts to go grainy.
A few years ago I laboriously went all over the NPG's
selectively-magnifiable digital image, enlarging it as far as it would go to
get a series of very high-resolution sections and then stitching them all
back together to get a version of the portrait which is 2490 pixels wide
(standard images you see on screen are usually about 600). If anyone wants
a copy let me know.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-30 17:14:36
Christine wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Carol responds:
And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
Carol
>
>
>
> I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
Carol responds:
And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 00:36:16
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Christine wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
>
> I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
>
> Carol
>
I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
Marie
>
> Christine wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
>
> I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
>
> Carol
>
I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
Marie
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 00:59:56
Marie wrote:
> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
Carol responds:
Which letter from Gerhard von Wesel, and to whom? I've never heard of it or him. Where can I find it?
Thanks,
Carol
> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
Carol responds:
Which letter from Gerhard von Wesel, and to whom? I've never heard of it or him. Where can I find it?
Thanks,
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 01:12:10
This is a link to images of "Schriftgut betreffend England und Gerhard von
Wesel."
I
f I thought reading medieval English script is a challenge, this is
impossible, since I know no German.
Anyone else want to take a look, or perhaps has already taken a look? Or is
there a reliable English translation?
http://historischesarchivkoeln.de/en/lesesaal/verzeichnungseinheit/161356
A J
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Christine wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of
> Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it
> with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of
> the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> > > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he
> told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was
> particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound
> Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any
> evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is
> that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground,
> earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done
> (like the lost feet) etc.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the
> proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed
> somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at
> Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
> Marie
>
>
>
Wesel."
I
f I thought reading medieval English script is a challenge, this is
impossible, since I know no German.
Anyone else want to take a look, or perhaps has already taken a look? Or is
there a reliable English translation?
http://historischesarchivkoeln.de/en/lesesaal/verzeichnungseinheit/161356
A J
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Christine wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of
> Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it
> with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of
> the photo's of the portraits people look at.
> > > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he
> told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was
> particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound
> Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any
> evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is
> that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground,
> earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done
> (like the lost feet) etc.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the
> proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed
> somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded at
> Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
> Marie
>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 01:21:12
Forgot to mention that there's also reference on the English Heritage
Barnet battlefield site to a letter written by Margaret to her mother in
law where she mentions the Battle of Barnet. Part of which is quoted:
'mon dit seigneur et frere se porta si honnestement que, lý oý il avoit le
visage vers le vilage oý Warwicque estoit parti, qui est ý dix mil de
Londres, nommet Vernet [Barnet], il se trouva le dos en la fin contre
icelui village'.
Sources for quotes mentioned on the website are
"The Newsletter of Gerhard von Wesel, 17 Apr 1471" John Adair, Journal of
the Society of Army Historical Research xlvi (1968) p 68; Anciennes
Croniques d'Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin, ed Dupont (Societe de
l'histoire dr France, 1858) iii 212-13
A J
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:12 PM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> This is a link to images of "Schriftgut betreffend England und Gerhard von
> Wesel."
> I
> f I thought reading medieval English script is a challenge, this is
> impossible, since I know no German.
>
> Anyone else want to take a look, or perhaps has already taken a look? Or
> is there a reliable English translation?
>
> http://historischesarchivkoeln.de/en/lesesaal/verzeichnungseinheit/161356
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67"
>> <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Christine wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of
>> Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it
>> with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of
>> the photo's of the portraits people look at.
>> > > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he
>> told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was
>> particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound
>> Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any
>> evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is
>> that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground,
>> earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done
>> (like the lost feet) etc.
>> >
>> > Carol responds:
>> >
>> > And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the
>> proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed
>> somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded
>> at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Barnet battlefield site to a letter written by Margaret to her mother in
law where she mentions the Battle of Barnet. Part of which is quoted:
'mon dit seigneur et frere se porta si honnestement que, lý oý il avoit le
visage vers le vilage oý Warwicque estoit parti, qui est ý dix mil de
Londres, nommet Vernet [Barnet], il se trouva le dos en la fin contre
icelui village'.
Sources for quotes mentioned on the website are
"The Newsletter of Gerhard von Wesel, 17 Apr 1471" John Adair, Journal of
the Society of Army Historical Research xlvi (1968) p 68; Anciennes
Croniques d'Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin, ed Dupont (Societe de
l'histoire dr France, 1858) iii 212-13
A J
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 7:12 PM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> This is a link to images of "Schriftgut betreffend England und Gerhard von
> Wesel."
> I
> f I thought reading medieval English script is a challenge, this is
> impossible, since I know no German.
>
> Anyone else want to take a look, or perhaps has already taken a look? Or
> is there a reliable English translation?
>
> http://historischesarchivkoeln.de/en/lesesaal/verzeichnungseinheit/161356
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:36 PM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67"
>> <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Christine wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of
>> Richard his top segment of his little finger is not missing. I tried it
>> with a magnifying glass. It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of
>> the photo's of the portraits people look at.
>> > > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he
>> told me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand, he was
>> particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about the wound
>> Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet but he could not find any
>> evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's involved with the bones is
>> that missing bit will have ben lost in the grave due to settling ground,
>> earth worm movement, disturbance whilst previous building work was done
>> (like the lost feet) etc.
>> >
>> > Carol responds:
>> >
>> > And some of the lost teeth, the ones with unhealed root holes (the
>> proper term escapes me again) having fallen out in the grave (as confirmed
>> somewhere online--I included the URL in an earlier post).
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if anyone knows where the idea that Richard was wounded
>> at Barnet comes from. I can find no mention of it in contemporary sources.
>> >
>> > Carol
>> >
>>
>> I'm pretty sure it's in the letter from Gerhard von Wesel.
>> Marie
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 01:29:55
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> [snip]
> Sources for quotes mentioned on the website are
>
> "The Newsletter of Gerhard von Wesel, 17 Apr 1471" John Adair, Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research xlvi (1968) p 68; Anciennes Croniques d'Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin, ed Dupont (Societe de l'histoire dr France, 1858) iii 212-13
Carol responds:
Thanks. At least we know that it was a letter to Margaret dated April 17, 1471, but I can't read German, either, much less medieval German.
Carol
>
> [snip]
> Sources for quotes mentioned on the website are
>
> "The Newsletter of Gerhard von Wesel, 17 Apr 1471" John Adair, Journal of the Society of Army Historical Research xlvi (1968) p 68; Anciennes Croniques d'Engleterre par Jehan de Waurin, ed Dupont (Societe de l'histoire dr France, 1858) iii 212-13
Carol responds:
Thanks. At least we know that it was a letter to Margaret dated April 17, 1471, but I can't read German, either, much less medieval German.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 08:50:36
Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be seen not to be split apart by others.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard
> > his top segment of his little finger is not missing.
>
> Yes, it does appear to be missing to me - although I would have said that in
> the portrait there's more present than in his skeleton. It looks like just
> the nail phalanx and maybe part of the middle one is missing. Either way,
> his little finger is shown as only about half the length of his ring finger.
>
> > I tried it with a magnifying glass.
>
> I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of the
> NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
>
> > It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the
> > portraits people look at.
>
> The National Portrait Gallery's highest-resolution offering.
>
> > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told
> > me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand,
>
> Did you quote him AJ's observations as a radiologist?
>
> > he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about
> > the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet
>
> Ah, thanks, that answers that question. I said before that I'd read in a
> novel (probably in Fortune's Wheel) that Richard's arm was injured in a
> battle and I didn't know whether the writer had made it up or whether they
> were deriving it from a genuine source, and it seems it's the latter.
>
> > but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's
> > involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the
> > grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst
> > previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
>
> Could be, yes. But the remaining bone looks abnormal - and they perhaps
> haven't had the opinion of a trained radiologist.
>
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > I agree Marie, if people look very carefully at the portraits of Richard
> > his top segment of his little finger is not missing.
>
> Yes, it does appear to be missing to me - although I would have said that in
> the portrait there's more present than in his skeleton. It looks like just
> the nail phalanx and maybe part of the middle one is missing. Either way,
> his little finger is shown as only about half the length of his ring finger.
>
> > I tried it with a magnifying glass.
>
> I'm using the highest magnification I could get on the online version of the
> NPG portrait - one that makes his fingertip 58 pixels wide.
>
> > It is also necessary to be aware of the quality of the photo's of the
> > portraits people look at.
>
> The National Portrait Gallery's highest-resolution offering.
>
> > Speaking to Bob Woosnam Savage about the missing bit on the bones he told
> > me that there were no signs of battle injury to his hand,
>
> Did you quote him AJ's observations as a radiologist?
>
> > he was particularly interested in this missing bit as he wondered about
> > the wound Richard was said to have suffered at Barnet
>
> Ah, thanks, that answers that question. I said before that I'd read in a
> novel (probably in Fortune's Wheel) that Richard's arm was injured in a
> battle and I didn't know whether the writer had made it up or whether they
> were deriving it from a genuine source, and it seems it's the latter.
>
> > but he could not find any evidence of a wound. Bob's opinion and other's
> > involved with the bones is that missing bit will have ben lost in the
> > grave due to settling ground, earth worm movement, disturbance whilst
> > previous building work was done (like the lost feet) etc.
>
> Could be, yes. But the remaining bone looks abnormal - and they perhaps
> haven't had the opinion of a trained radiologist.
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-05-31 10:52:39
From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
> seen not to be split apart by others.
I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
multiple times.
To:
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
> Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
> seen not to be split apart by others.
I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
multiple times.
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-06-02 09:55:25
OK Claire you are always right of course but I personally object to my posts being split up as it can alter the meaning of the post.
Well Claire enough is enough I intend to send all your posts straight to my rubbish bin as I do not like your attitude to many members of the forum and that you seem always to think you are right and will not listen to others.
SORRY NEIL throw me out if you want or make me apologise but it will not alter the way I feel about this.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
> > seen not to be split apart by others.
>
> I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
> messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
> comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
> and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
> Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
> multiple times.
>
Well Claire enough is enough I intend to send all your posts straight to my rubbish bin as I do not like your attitude to many members of the forum and that you seem always to think you are right and will not listen to others.
SORRY NEIL throw me out if you want or make me apologise but it will not alter the way I feel about this.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>
>
> > Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
> > seen not to be split apart by others.
>
> I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
> messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
> comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
> and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
> Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
> multiple times.
>
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-06-02 20:58:52
Well Claire, see what bad feelings you engender here.
As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
Hear the message.
Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Paul
On 02/06/2013 09:55, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
>
> OK Claire you are always right of course but I personally object to my posts being split up as it can alter the meaning of the post.
> Well Claire enough is enough I intend to send all your posts straight to my rubbish bin as I do not like your attitude to many members of the forum and that you seem always to think you are right and will not listen to others.
> SORRY NEIL throw me out if you want or make me apologise but it will not alter the way I feel about this.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>> From: christineholmes651@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>> Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
>>> seen not to be split apart by others.
>> I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
>> messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
>> comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
>> and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
>> Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
>> multiple times.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
Hear the message.
Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Paul
On 02/06/2013 09:55, christineholmes651@... wrote:
>
>
> OK Claire you are always right of course but I personally object to my posts being split up as it can alter the meaning of the post.
> Well Claire enough is enough I intend to send all your posts straight to my rubbish bin as I do not like your attitude to many members of the forum and that you seem always to think you are right and will not listen to others.
> SORRY NEIL throw me out if you want or make me apologise but it will not alter the way I feel about this.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>> From: christineholmes651@...
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 8:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
>>
>>
>>> Claire,please stop altering my messages , I write them as intended to be
>>> seen not to be split apart by others.
>> I'm not "alterring" them - I'm replying to them in the standard way in which
>> messages are replied to. Quoting entire messages when you only want to
>> comment on a few individual points is bad practice - it soaks up bandwidth
>> and clogs up people's inboxes. It's especially bad for those who use the
>> Digest option because then the same block of text is repeated in the digest
>> multiple times.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-06-02 22:01:53
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Well Claire, see what bad feelings you engender here.
> As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
> Hear the message.
> Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
> Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. All Claire did was to respond to a post point-by-point, a common tactic in answering long posts. I've used it on occasion, clearly identifying who said what, and no one has ever fussed at me for it. Another method is the one I usually use, snipping the part of the post that doesn't apply to my response. Both are perfectly acceptable strategies and in some ways preferable to the top-posting that seems to be the norm here.
I do understand why certain topics or attitudes expressed by one poster or another might on occasion engender hard feelings, but, surely, responding to one point at a time or to part rather than a whole post should not cause offense. Both are very common strategies on Internet forums and intended to make following a conversation easier.
Carol
>
> Well Claire, see what bad feelings you engender here.
> As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
> Hear the message.
> Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
> Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. All Claire did was to respond to a post point-by-point, a common tactic in answering long posts. I've used it on occasion, clearly identifying who said what, and no one has ever fussed at me for it. Another method is the one I usually use, snipping the part of the post that doesn't apply to my response. Both are perfectly acceptable strategies and in some ways preferable to the top-posting that seems to be the norm here.
I do understand why certain topics or attitudes expressed by one poster or another might on occasion engender hard feelings, but, surely, responding to one point at a time or to part rather than a whole post should not cause offense. Both are very common strategies on Internet forums and intended to make following a conversation easier.
Carol
Re: NOT Richard's Appearance
2013-06-03 02:47:44
Jeepers, gang........ Can't we all just skim the messages which are annoying, or delete, delete, delete? So many wonderful, well thought out, and foot-noted posts are amazing to a new member, and non-scholar. Many things sail right past me, but I have also learned many things form many people.
On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:02 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Well Claire, see what bad feelings you engender here.
> As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
> Hear the message.
> Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
> Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. All Claire did was to respond to a post point-by-point, a common tactic in answering long posts. I've used it on occasion, clearly identifying who said what, and no one has ever fussed at me for it. Another method is the one I usually use, snipping the part of the post that doesn't apply to my response. Both are perfectly acceptable strategies and in some ways preferable to the top-posting that seems to be the norm here.
I do understand why certain topics or attitudes expressed by one poster or another might on occasion engender hard feelings, but, surely, responding to one point at a time or to part rather than a whole post should not cause offense. Both are very common strategies on Internet forums and intended to make following a conversation easier.
Carol
On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:02 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
> Well Claire, see what bad feelings you engender here.
> As Neil suggested not too long ago, this is not the place for you.
> Hear the message.
> Christine is far from alone in her feelings.
> Junk boxes all over the forum are filling with your unread posts.
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. All Claire did was to respond to a post point-by-point, a common tactic in answering long posts. I've used it on occasion, clearly identifying who said what, and no one has ever fussed at me for it. Another method is the one I usually use, snipping the part of the post that doesn't apply to my response. Both are perfectly acceptable strategies and in some ways preferable to the top-posting that seems to be the norm here.
I do understand why certain topics or attitudes expressed by one poster or another might on occasion engender hard feelings, but, surely, responding to one point at a time or to part rather than a whole post should not cause offense. Both are very common strategies on Internet forums and intended to make following a conversation easier.
Carol
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.