ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

Three things jumped out at me from this article:

1. The full study will be available
online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
(May 24) here:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm

2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall

3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
body into a more symmetrical position."

I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
laid out on a table a few months ago.

I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
angle or the impact on how he moved.

Anyway, the news article is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html

~Weds
--

- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
- *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
Richard III" is this sentence --

There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.


A J


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
<wednesday.mac@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>
> 1. The full study will be available
> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> (May 24) here:
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>
> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>
> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> body into a more symmetrical position."
>
> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>
> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>
> Anyway, the news article is here:
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>
> ~Weds
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>
>

That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.

Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.

The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.

His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.

~Weds


--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Three things jumped out at me from this article:
> >
> > 1. The full study will be available
> > online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> > (May 24) here:
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
> >
> > 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> > Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
> >
> > 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> > was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> > Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> > The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> > because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> > resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> > body into a more symmetrical position."
> >
> > I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> > Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> > months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> > on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> > smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> > laid out on a table a few months ago.
> >
> > I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> > and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> > angle or the impact on how he moved.
> >
> > Anyway, the news article is here:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
> >
> > ~Weds

Well, they bused in an orthopaedic surgeon from Peterborough City Hospital during the initial examinations...

Jonathan




________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste



 
That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.

Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.

The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.

His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.

~Weds

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Three things jumped out at me from this article:
> >
> > 1. The full study will be available
> > online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> > (May 24) here:
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
> >
> > 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> > Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
> >
> > 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> > was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> > Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> > The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> > because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> > resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> > body into a more symmetrical position."
> >
> > I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> > Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> > months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> > on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> > smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> > laid out on a table a few months ago.
> >
> > I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> > and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> > angle or the impact on how he moved.
> >
> > Anyway, the news article is here:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
> >
> > ~Weds

Yes I re-watched the programme the other night and it was an 'NHS specialist' who gave the verdict on the scoliosis. He was standing next to Jo Appleby  



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 9:26
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

 

Well, they bused in an orthopaedic surgeon from Peterborough City Hospital during the initial examinations...

Jonathan

________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 4:42
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste


 
That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.

Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.

The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.

His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.

~Weds

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Three things jumped out at me from this article:
> >
> > 1. The full study will be available
> > online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> > (May 24) here:
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
> >
> > 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> > Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
> >
> > 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> > was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> > Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> > The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> > because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> > resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> > body into a more symmetrical position."
> >
> > I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> > Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> > months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> > on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> > smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> > laid out on a table a few months ago.
> >
> > I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> > and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> > angle or the impact on how he moved.
> >
> > Anyway, the news article is here:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
> >
> > ~Weds

"The torso crammed in, suggesting gravediggers were in a hurry to bury
him or had no respect for the murdered king. There is also evidence his
hands might have been tied when he was buried"
Interesting they say such things, taking nothing into account like
ground movement, buildings above destroyed and rebuilt etc.
At the same time Military History magazine has just come out with a new
issue titled The Killing of Richard III, in which Richard is described
as "lightly built and disabled". So all you out there with scoliosis,
did you know you were disabled? Did you Michael Phelps? You clearly look
disabled! Every time I've seen you in your speedos I've thought, my
goodness that guy is disabled!
I'm getting sick and tired of this disabled label. As I am certain all
those with scoliosis are!
I have ordered the magazine and will report more when it arrives. Unless
someone has stolen a copy online.
I suppose the best thing to jump out at me from these two new articles
are the words "murdered king" and "the killing of Richard III", both
phrases acknowledging that his death was unlawful and a criminal act.
Paul


On 24/05/2013 03:57, Wednesday McKenna wrote:
> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>
> 1. The full study will be available
> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> (May 24) here:
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>
> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>
> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> body into a more symmetrical position."
>
> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>
> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>
> Anyway, the news article is here:
> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>
> ~Weds


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

And I am still bewildered at the lack of contemporary reference to
Richard's so called physical deformity, or unusual appearance. NObody
said anything, and had the likes of Margaret Beaufort or Morton had any
idea that there was anything different or unusual about Richard's
physique they would have used it against him in rumour. I mean even
Colyngbourne gave not a hint!
But then More and Shakespeare told us all about it so it must be true!
Right?

Like last night's Anne Boleyn film, in spite of the evidence of her
final confession, where she again proclaimed her innocence, when she had
no hope of life, and feared for her soul, very important at the time to
one and all, up popped some 'historian' [male of course] saying that she
must have committed adultery, certainly with Smeaton and one other. Must
have been there then! [Have to say the best moment for me was when they
mentioned the accusation of witchcraft and up came Alison Weir!:-) ]
Paul



On 24/05/2013 04:42, wednesday_mc wrote:
> That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.
>
> Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.
>
> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.
>
> His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
>> Richard III" is this sentence --
>>
>> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
>> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
>> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>>
>>
>> A J
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
>> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>>>
>>> 1. The full study will be available
>>> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
>>> (May 24) here:
>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>>>
>>> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
>>> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>>>
>>> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
>>> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
>>> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
>>> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
>>> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
>>> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
>>> body into a more symmetrical position."
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
>>> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
>>> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
>>> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
>>> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
>>> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
>>> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
>>> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the news article is here:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 24/05/2013 10:31, Hilary Jones wrote:
> Yes I re-watched the programme the other night and it was an 'NHS specialist' who gave the verdict on the scoliosis. He was standing next to Jo Appleby
>
>
Jo Appleby of the shovel and screams of 'hunchback' the moment she saw
the remains.
Woman has done so much damage, not just to the skull but to Richard's
reputation.
One word, just one word!
Paul


>
> ________________________________
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 9:26
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste
>
>
>
> Well, they bused in an orthopaedic surgeon from Peterborough City Hospital during the initial examinations...
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 4:42
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste
>
>
>
> That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.
>
> Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.
>
> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.
>
> His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
>> Richard III" is this sentence --
>>
>> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
>> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
>> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>>
>>
>> A J
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
>> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>>>
>>> 1. The full study will be available
>>> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
>>> (May 24) here:
>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>>>
>>> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
>>> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>>>
>>> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
>>> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
>>> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
>>> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
>>> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
>>> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
>>> body into a more symmetrical position."
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
>>> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
>>> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
>>> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
>>> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
>>> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
>>> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
>>> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the news article is here:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The opposite of everything we have been told to date.
Paul

On 24/05/2013 04:10, A J Hibbard wrote:
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>>
>> 1. The full study will be available
>> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
>> (May 24) here:
>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>>
>> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
>> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>>
>> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
>> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
>> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
>> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
>> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
>> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
>> body into a more symmetrical position."
>>
>> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
>> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
>> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
>> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
>> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
>> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>>
>> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
>> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
>> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>>
>> Anyway, the news article is here:
>>
>> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>>
>> ~Weds
>> --
>>
>> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 24/05/2013 04:10, A J Hibbard wrote:
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
Sandra: Does anyone on the Forum have sufficient knowledge of skeletons and something like Paint Shop Pro to reconstruct' Richard's actual shape? I know it would be bone by bone, but the end result would surely be very helpful. Granted it could not be exact, but perhaps it would give us a much better idea than we have now? I know a little of PSP, but nothing of skeletons, and RSI has put a stop to a lot of intricate PSP work. Dedication would be needed, to say nothing of patience, but I really would like to see what might be achieved.

I forgot to add that there is a good image at http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

From: SandraMachin
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11 PM
To:
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste


On 24/05/2013 04:10, A J Hibbard wrote:
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
Sandra: Does anyone on the Forum have sufficient knowledge of skeletons and something like Paint Shop Pro to reconstruct' Richard's actual shape? I know it would be bone by bone, but the end result would surely be very helpful. Granted it could not be exact, but perhaps it would give us a much better idea than we have now? I know a little of PSP, but nothing of skeletons, and RSI has put a stop to a lot of intricate PSP work. Dedication would be needed, to say nothing of patience, but I really would like to see what might be achieved.

I think the things to remember here is that they had to bury him quickly and without much fuss in order to stop any Yorkists rescuing the body for their own cause. Also if they'd done it all nicely they'd have probably been in trouble - don't forget he was an enemy of the the state at the time. It'd be the equivelant of Bin Laden getting a nice burial (not that I'm saying he was bad - I'm a Yorkist and from Worksop so I'd be getting chased around by the Talbot lot myself!)

There are also brief glimpses of a 3-D "reconstructed" skeleton in the 2nd
video about finding Richard.

A J


On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 6:14 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I forgot to add that there is a good image at
> http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg
>
> From: SandraMachin
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
> King Buried in Haste
>
>
> On 24/05/2013 04:10, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of
> King
> > Richard III" is this sentence --
> >
> > There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and
> the
> > position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position
> in
> > life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
> >
> Sandra: Does anyone on the Forum have sufficient knowledge of skeletons
> and something like Paint Shop Pro to ýreconstructý Richardýs actual shape?
> I know it would be bone by bone, but the end result would surely be very
> helpful. Granted it could not be exact, but perhaps it would give us a much
> better idea than we have now? I know a little of PSP, but nothing of
> skeletons, and RSI has put a stop to a lot of intricate PSP work.
> Dedication would be needed, to say nothing of patience, but I really would
> like to see what might be achieved.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And did you notice that last night PG was going on about AB having had a deformed baby and that would have made both the mother and the child outcasts of the church? 



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 24 May 2013, 10:47
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste


 

And I am still bewildered at the lack of contemporary reference to
Richard's so called physical deformity, or unusual appearance. NObody
said anything, and had the likes of Margaret Beaufort or Morton had any
idea that there was anything different or unusual about Richard's
physique they would have used it against him in rumour. I mean even
Colyngbourne gave not a hint!
But then More and Shakespeare told us all about it so it must be true!
Right?

Like last night's Anne Boleyn film, in spite of the evidence of her
final confession, where she again proclaimed her innocence, when she had
no hope of life, and feared for her soul, very important at the time to
one and all, up popped some 'historian' [male of course] saying that she
must have committed adultery, certainly with Smeaton and one other. Must
have been there then! [Have to say the best moment for me was when they
mentioned the accusation of witchcraft and up came Alison Weir!:-) ]
Paul

On 24/05/2013 04:42, wednesday_mc wrote:
> That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.
>
> Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.
>
> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.
>
> His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
>> Richard III" is this sentence --
>>
>> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
>> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
>> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>>
>>
>> A J
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
>> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>>>
>>> 1. The full study will be available
>>> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
>>> (May 24) here:
>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>>>
>>> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
>>> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>>>
>>> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
>>> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
>>> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
>>> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
>>> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
>>> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
>>> body into a more symmetrical position."
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
>>> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
>>> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
>>> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
>>> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
>>> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
>>> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
>>> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the news article is here:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I really think that is all supposition.....no one can know if his breathing and blood flow was restricted. The body makes some amazing accommodations to an anomaly. He seemed to be ale to do a lot of other things. Why, just at the end is this the supposition?

On May 23, 2013, at 10:42 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.

Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.

The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.

His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
> Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Three things jumped out at me from this article:
> >
> > 1. The full study will be available
> > online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> > (May 24) here:
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
> >
> > 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> > Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
> >
> > 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> > was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> > Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> > The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> > because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> > resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> > body into a more symmetrical position."
> >
> > I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> > Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> > months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> > on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> > smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> > laid out on a table a few months ago.
> >
> > I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> > and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> > angle or the impact on how he moved.
> >
> > Anyway, the news article is here:
> >
> > http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
> >
> > ~Weds

My point exactly.....when I was in college, a zillion years ago, the college phenom then was Ana amazing athlete named Pete Marovich. Pete died in his early thirties, which was shocking. His autopsy showed that his entire respiratory and system of blood flow was completely different than the norm. However, he had never shown any problems. And played very successfully in the NBA. So, my point, if one is taking part in life, more or less routinely, how can post-mortem hypotheses be anything in but that, hypothetical.

On May 24, 2013, at 4:35 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...<mailto:paul.bale@...>> wrote:



"The torso crammed in, suggesting gravediggers were in a hurry to bury
him or had no respect for the murdered king. There is also evidence his
hands might have been tied when he was buried"
Interesting they say such things, taking nothing into account like
ground movement, buildings above destroyed and rebuilt etc.
At the same time Military History magazine has just come out with a new
issue titled The Killing of Richard III, in which Richard is described
as "lightly built and disabled". So all you out there with scoliosis,
did you know you were disabled? Did you Michael Phelps? You clearly look
disabled! Every time I've seen you in your speedos I've thought, my
goodness that guy is disabled!
I'm getting sick and tired of this disabled label. As I am certain all
those with scoliosis are!
I have ordered the magazine and will report more when it arrives. Unless
someone has stolen a copy online.
I suppose the best thing to jump out at me from these two new articles
are the words "murdered king" and "the killing of Richard III", both
phrases acknowledging that his death was unlawful and a criminal act.
Paul

On 24/05/2013 03:57, Wednesday McKenna wrote:
> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>
> 1. The full study will be available
> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> (May 24) here:
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>
> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>
> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> body into a more symmetrical position."
>
> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>
> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>
> Anyway, the news article is here:
> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>
> ~Weds

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Weds, I so agree with you on this.  I just cannot reconcile the scrawny, weak, man with a twisted spine I keep hearing Richard described as with the brave warrior we know him to have been. It is not that there is anything wrong with having scoliosis, or being small, it is just the degree of curvature they are depicting.   Vickie


From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 9:57 PM
Subject: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

 
Three things jumped out at me from this article:

1. The full study will be available
online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
(May 24) here:
http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm

2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall

3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
body into a more symmetrical position."

I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
laid out on a table a few months ago.

I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
angle or the impact on how he moved.

Anyway, the news article is here:
http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html

~Weds
--

- *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
- *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.

Thank you Paul, I have scoliosis and it has never stopped me from doing anything I wanted to do.  I am definitely not disabled. Vickie


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

 
"The torso crammed in, suggesting gravediggers were in a hurry to bury
him or had no respect for the murdered king. There is also evidence his
hands might have been tied when he was buried"
Interesting they say such things, taking nothing into account like
ground movement, buildings above destroyed and rebuilt etc.
At the same time Military History magazine has just come out with a new
issue titled The Killing of Richard III, in which Richard is described
as "lightly built and disabled". So all you out there with scoliosis,
did you know you were disabled? Did you Michael Phelps? You clearly look
disabled! Every time I've seen you in your speedos I've thought, my
goodness that guy is disabled!
I'm getting sick and tired of this disabled label. As I am certain all
those with scoliosis are!
I have ordered the magazine and will report more when it arrives. Unless
someone has stolen a copy online.
I suppose the best thing to jump out at me from these two new articles
are the words "murdered king" and "the killing of Richard III", both
phrases acknowledging that his death was unlawful and a criminal act.
Paul
On 24/05/2013 03:57, Wednesday McKenna wrote:
> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>
> 1. The full study will be available
> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> (May 24) here:
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>
> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>
> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> body into a more symmetrical position."
>
> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>
> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>
> Anyway, the news article is here:
> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>
> ~Weds

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Agree Weds. It really needs to be investigated properly.

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>
> 1. The full study will be available
> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
> (May 24) here:
> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>
> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>
> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
> body into a more symmetrical position."
>
> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>
> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>
> Anyway, the news article is here:
> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>
> ~Weds
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>
>
>
>

Do you know if Leicester U. released any documentation on that, or if he/she was allowed to speak at any of their media conferences? I remember their having a forensic specialist in for the first Channel 4 documentary (and he discussed only the wounds), but not an orthopaedic surgeon.

I hope at some point they'll let an orthopaedic surgeon (or more than one) examine the bones and he/she will write a paper. With lots of illustrations.



--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> Well, they bused in an orthopaedic surgeon from Peterborough City Hospital during the initial examinations...
>
> Jonathan

I have extensive experience in Photoshop and a writing partner who knows anatomy, so I could do it. She also has scoliosis, rides 4th level dressage, and likes Richard.

Ideally, we'd have multiple people doing it and compare the results at the end. See if there's any similarity to what we come up with.

To start this, I need a large, high resolution photo of his spine. The bigger, the better. 72 dpi and 2" wide won't work because the detail isn't there. Anybody know where we can find one? It won't take that long.

~Weds


--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Sandra: Does anyone on the Forum have sufficient knowledge of skeletons and something like Paint Shop Pro to ‘reconstruct’ Richard’s actual shape? I know it would be bone by bone, but the end result would surely be very helpful. Granted it could not be exact, but perhaps it would give us a much better idea than we have now? I know a little of PSP, but nothing of skeletons, and RSI has put a stop to a lot of intricate PSP work. Dedication would be needed, to say nothing of patience, but I really would like to see what might be achieved.

This image is perfect for the purpose -- since it's 27", it doesn't matter that it's 72 dpi. I can work with that. Let me get my writing partner over here, and we're off. Give me 24 hours.

Can someone(s) else do this too?

~Weds

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that there is a good image at http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

Brilliant, Weds! Thank you for taking up the challenge. I look forward to seeing what can be managed. Well, not only me, I'm sure we are all eager to see.

From: wednesday_mc
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste


This image is perfect for the purpose -- since it's 27", it doesn't matter that it's 72 dpi. I can work with that. Let me get my writing partner over here, and we're off. Give me 24 hours.

Can someone(s) else do this too?

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that there is a good image at http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

Yes Weds, this is exciting. I can't wait to see what you come up with
Vickie

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

 
Brilliant, Weds! Thank you for taking up the challenge. I look forward to seeing what can be managed. Well, not only me, I'm sure we are all eager to see.

From: wednesday_mc
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 6:40 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste

This image is perfect for the purpose -- since it's 27", it doesn't matter that it's 72 dpi. I can work with that. Let me get my writing partner over here, and we're off. Give me 24 hours.

Can someone(s) else do this too?

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that there is a good image at http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> Yes I re-watched the programme the other night and it was an 'NHS
> specialist' who gave the verdict on the scoliosis. He was standing next to
> Jo Appleby

I actually corresponded with the guy by email a few months ago, but he said
he wasn't allowed to comment on Richard because he'd signed a contract, with
Ch 4 I think.

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:42 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised
> Richard's breathing and his mobility.

No, it wouldn't have. I quoted before from a scoliotic who says her curve
is nearly identical to Richard's, and she didn't have any significant
mobility problems until she was about 50. The human body is remarkably
resilient and adaptable and you can manage perfectly well with only one
functioning lung, so long as the surviving lung is in good condition -
provided he didn't take up town-crying or develop pneumonia, you'd probably
never know he had a problem.

I was listening to something only the other day about George VI having the
whole of one lung removed as a treatment for lung cancer, and how he thanked
the surgeon afterwards and said that he felt marvellous and retored to
vigorous life.

And I don't think the curve would affect Richard's heart particularly,
because the bulk of your heart is to the left and his spine bulged away to
the right. If he had lived, he might well have ended up crippled on a couch
20 years later - but he never had to find that out.

It might have caused him stiffness and pain at night because beds are flat
and scoliotics aren't, but we're told that he took his own bed with him on
campaign, which suggests that he'd managed to find a bed he could get
comfortable in.

From: Vickie Cook
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> Weds, I so agree with you on this. I just cannot reconcile the scrawny,
> weak, man with a twisted spine I keep hearing Richard described as

Contemporary accounts and his skeleton agree that he had unusually slender
limbs. We already discussed the fact that being slender doesn't necessarily
equate to being weak - if you have the right sort of muscles it's possible
to look like a handful of uncooked spaghetti and yet be incredibly strong.
Having said which, the only contemporary or near contemporary comment we
have on whether he was strong or not says that he wasn't (or that he was not
virile or not masculine, however you want to interpret that).

> with the brave warrior we know him to have been.

Brave isn't the same as strong. I've asked twice already whether we have
any evidence that Richard was a particularly skilful hands-on fighter - as
distinct from being a particularly *brave* fighter and a skilful commander -
and noboidy answered either time, so I take it the answer is no, we don't
have any evidence that he was.

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King Richard III" is this sentence --
>
> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.

Carol responds:

I'd like to see experts not affiliated with Leicester give their opinions on this matter. I think they're a little too certain of their findings here (just as they were earlier and may still be about the "bound" hands and supposed absence of a shroud, both of which "findings" were questioned in the most recent R III Bulletin). The good thing about publication in a peer-reviewed journal like "Antiquity" is that other experts can and probably will challenge their findings. I just hope that those other scientists have had or will have a chance to work with the actual skeleton before Richard is buried and that 3-D imagery of the entire skeleton will remain available. Someone should use a 3-D printer to copy all the bones and assemble them as they were in life. In other words, I agree with Wednesday that we can't just accept the word of a team that fails to credit important people, damages a skull with a mattock, and uses unprofessional language ("hunchback") on national television, among other failings, as if it were gospel. It's like taking the Croyland chronicler as the last word on Richard as king.

Carol

Wednesday wrote:
>
> That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.
>
> Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his scoliosis or how it would have affected him.
>
> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did, Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.
>
> His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal curvature contradict each other.
>
> ~Weds

Carol responds:

Exactly. Normally, I don't do "I agree" posts when I have nothing to add, but I wanted you to know that you're not alone in this view.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> > His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of
> > spinal curvature contradict each other.
>
> Exactly. Normally, I don't do "I agree" posts when I have nothing to add,
> but I wanted you to know that you're not alone in this view.

But they *don't* contradict each other, because real living actual people
with the same degree of curvature Richard appeared to have have no
significant mobility problems when they are the age Richard was.

What evidence do either of you have that that degree of curvature would have
created serious problems, other than "Well, it looks to me as though it
might"?

"SandraMachin" wrote:
>
> I forgot to add that there is a good image at http://img.timeinc.net/time/2013/graphics/kingrichard/p/big.jpg

Carol responds:

Yes, that image of the bones on the table has been around since about September. Unfortunately, it's two dimensional. What we need, in my view (and I think in Wednesday's) is a vertical, 3-D reconstruction showing how his skeleton would have looked when he was alive and standing. It would also be helpful to have a reconstruction of his body made using the same principles they used for the facial reconstruction (a la Lucy, Nariokotome Boy, and the Neanderthal) so we could see what it looked like lightly clothed (not naked, of course) and fully clothed.

Until that is done and made available at least to scientists and researchers if not to the general public, I can't accept their findings for exactly the same reason that Wednesday gave--the lack of any indication of deformity in the contemporary descriptions of Richard. Wouldn't Commynes, who made so much fuss about Edward's weight, have made even more of a fuss about any visible deformity in Richard, whom he considered (or claimed to consider) wicked?

Von Popelau, writing in his own diary, had no reason not to comment on any deformity he saw, yet all he mentions is slender arms and legs--not so much as a raised shoulder. Rous called him "weak in body," but that probably meant that he was small and slender. It is, of course, possibly to be strong but wiry, as I imagine Richard was from all that practice with arms and frequent riding.

Or we can follow the reviewer of the new book by the MP whose name I've forgotten for the moment and call him "a human pretzel." Grr!

Sorry, Sandra. I'm mad at the reviewer, not you! This is one of those posts that strays from the quoted line that prompted the response (but not, I hope, completely off topic.)

Carol

Claire wrote:
> [snip] we're told that he took his own bed with him on campaign, which suggests that he'd managed to find a bed he could get comfortable in.

Carol responds:

I've forgotten the source of that rumor, but I think it's a late one. Does anyone know where it comes from? It may have no more substance than the obviously concocted fable about the old woman prophesying that he would hit his head against the bridge on his return (nothing about that in Croyland or even Vergil) or the bones thrown into the River Soar. (At least *that* myth is gone for good, along with, I hope, the withered arm. And no, More did not mean a skinny but normal arm. He meant one that was abnormally shriveled, which, mercifully, the Leicester team indicates is not the case.)

Carol

Claire wrote:
> Brave isn't the same as strong. I've asked twice already whether we have any evidence that Richard was a particularly skilful hands-on fighter - as distinct from being a particularly *brave* fighter and a skilful commander - and noboidy answered either time, so I take it the answer is no, we don't have any evidence that he was.

Carol responds:

I think we did mention unhorsing Sir John Cheyney, which you argued, IIRC, did not require strength despite the man's being something like six feet nine and three hundred pounds. Rous, who has just called him "weak" (or perhaps small and slender) says that "the king with great force drove him to the ground." We also know that he killed the standard bearer, William Brandon (after first overthrowing his standard).

http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm

We don't know who he killed in other battles (probably, neither did he), but certainly he fought and led effectively or Edward would not have praised him so profusely or had him lead the van at Tewkesbury, a very prestigious but dangerous position for a youth of eighteen (or even a veteran soldier). If he were physically weak and incapable of fighting effectively in that exposed position, Edward would not have put him there.

There's also the poem I quoted at one point about Richard at Barnet: Verses on the recovery of the throne by Edward IV after the Battle of Barnet, 1471

http://www.richard111.com/what_history_has_to_say_about_ri.htm

"The Duke of Gloucester, that nobill prynce, Yonge of age and victorious in batayle, To the honour of Ectour that he might comens, Grace him followeth, fortune, and good spede. I suppose he is the same that clerkis of rede [Chaucer's clerk in the Canterbury Tales?], Fortune hathe hym chosen and forth with hym will goo Her husbande to bee, the will of God is soo."

Verses on the recovery of the throne by Edward IV after the Battle of Barnet, 1471

http://books.google.com/books?id=oCPhGcLPnRsC&pg=PA280&dq=%22that+nobill+prynce%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Kf6fUdCIIK7ligLys4D4Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20nobill%20prynce%22&f=false

The poet is comparing him to Hector in the Trojan War, no small compliment, and it would have referred to his skill with a sword as well as his generalship. Yes, this is a propaganda poem, but it clearly reflects the opinion of the Yorkist faction.

Carol

Claire wrote:
> What evidence do either of you have that that degree of curvature would have created serious problems, other than "Well, it looks to me as though it might"?
>
Carol responds:

The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower spine about three inches apart and the ribs where the spine should be. He would be severely crippled if his skeleton were aligned like that, and his deformity would be so marked that many people, especially his enemies, would have commented on it.

Yes, that's my opinion, just as your contrary view is your opinion. That's why I want the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon--based not on bones flat on a table arranged by Jo Appleby but on a 3-D model. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of the finders, one of whom gleefully called him a hunchback, rather than an objective third party. I cannot reconcile the contemporary descriptions with the bones as arranged on that table.

The degree of scoliosis they're attributing to him far exceeds that of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and could not, in my view, have been concealed by clothing. If the experts from other universities agree that the findings of the Leicester team are correct, then I will concede defeat. Until then, or until I see a 3-D skeleton, I will remain skeptical about the Leicester team's findings.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 11:44 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> I'd like to see experts not affiliated with Leicester give their opinions
> on this matter. I think they're a little too certain of their findings
> here (just as they were earlier and may still be about the "bound" hands
> and supposed absence of a shroud, both of which "findings" were questioned
> in the most recent R III Bulletin).

I'm sure you're right about that. If you look at photographs
http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/23/4360358/king-richard-iii-buried-quickly
which show his hands fairly clearly he appears to have the fingers of his
left hand wrapped around his right wrist - a very difficult position to
achieve by tying the hands - and his posture matches the supposedly-shrouded
bodies you found. Plus there's the metal thing which had fallen through his
chest, and which is in just the right place to be the remains of a nail or
staple used to pin a makeshift shroud closed. He was probabaly shrouded in
some friar's blanket.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> And no, More did not mean a skinny but normal arm. He meant one that was
> abnormally shriveled, which, mercifully, the Leicester team indicates is
> not the case.)

I know that's what More meant, but it sounds to me as though More had
misunderstood somebody else's comment about Richard's slender arms, and so
had got it wrong.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> I think we did mention unhorsing Sir John Cheyney, which you argued, IIRC,
> did not require strength despite the man's being something like six feet
> nine

It depends how he overthrew him, but throwing him from the saddle suggests
he grappled with him and that wouldn't require much strength, no. It's to
do with centres of gravity - a short man has a big advantage over a very
tall man if they wrestle. Richard would only have to catch hold of Cheney's
arm and lean back, and Cheney would fly over his shoulder. And of course
Cheney's weight would then provide the forceful impact

When I had my shop, on slack days I used to amuse myself by picking up my
hulking 6'1" assistant and carrying him around. I couldn't have done it if
he'd been shorter, but because his centre of gravity was so far above mine
(I'm 5'6"), all I had to do was put my arms round his chest and lean back,
and he pivoted over the fulcrum of my pelvis and lifted off the floor.

> We also know that he killed the standard bearer, William Brandon (after
> first overthrowing his standard).

Yes. But how much strength that required depends on what armour the herald
was wearing.

> but certainly he fought and led effectively or Edward would not have
> praised him so profusely or had him lead the van at Tewkesbury,

There's no doubt he was an excellent commander, and at least fought well
enough to survive.

> "The Duke of Gloucester, that nobill prynce, Yonge of age and victorious
> in batayle, To the honour of Ectour that he might comens, Grace him
> followeth, fortune, and good spede. I suppose he is the same that clerkis
> of rede [Chaucer's clerk in the Canterbury Tales?], Fortune hathe hym
> chosen and forth with hym will goo Her husbande to bee, the will of God is
> soo."

Yes, but again this seems to be praising his skill as a commander.

> and it would have referred to his skill with a sword as well as his
> generalship.

Do we know that it did?

I'm not saying he neccessarily *wasn't* a strong fighter - just that we have
no real evidence that he was, so we can't say "He couldn't have been this or
this way because it's not compatible with his being a really strong fighter"
when we don't actually know that he was one. What we know is that he was an
extremely brave fighter, and that he was a skilled general.

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:11 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower
> spine about three inches apart

No, really. His thighbone is about 17" (has to be for them to have
estimated his straight height as 5'8") and you can measure from that.

> and the ribs where the spine should be. He would be severely crippled if
> his skeleton were aligned like that, and his deformity would be so marked
> that many people, especially his enemies, would have commented on it.

> Yes, that's my opinion, just as your contrary view is your opinion.

But my opinion isn't *my* opinion - it's the opinion of somebody who has
that degree of curvature and lives with it.

> The degree of scoliosis they're attributing to him far exceeds that of
> Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and could not, in my view, have been
> concealed by clothing.

But the view of their top expert on scoliosis is that it *could* have been
concealed by clothing. Anbd we all saw how lovely Vikkie looks and if she
hadn't told us she has one shoulder higher than the other we would just have
thought she was standing at a slant.

> If the experts from other universities agree that the findings of the
> Leicester team are correct,

Their pet expert, whose name temporarily escapes me but I can find it if you
like, is from another uni - Oxford iirc.

1. Look at a photo of how the heart and lungs are normally positioned in a man's ribcage.

2. Look at a photo -- any photo of the bones as laid out in the documentary, or the grave -- of Richard's spinal curvature.

3. Position Richard's ribs/ribcage as it would be per Leicester U.'s analysis.

4. Insert his heart and lungs within the ribcage Leicester has assigned him. Be sure to note the compression of his lungs and the compression of his heart due to the curvature of his spine.

5. Research how lungs inflate, and how compromised Richard's breathing would have been with his left lung compressed in his chest to that degree. Note also that his right lung's ability to inflate would also be compromised.

6. Research how unhappy/inefficient heart performance becomes when they do not have enough space to pump.

7. Tell me then how Richard could reasonably be expected to do what we know he did in life with the severely compressed cardio/respiratory capacity that's presented by the degree of scoliosis and organ displacement insisted upon in Leicester U's scenario. (They are also insisting the position of his vertebrae were not affected by the dissolution of his body or the way his torso and shoulders were crammed into his grave...all I can say is if someone curls up a cat (foreshortening his spine), and puts it in a grave, and someone digs up that cat 500 years later, they don't assume the cat walked curled up during its life, yet that's what Leicester is assuming about Richard's spine.

If Leicester U's "diagnosis" were correct, Richard would have been gasping for breath after climbing the stairway into Middleham's great hall. There is no way a man with that diagnosis could have effectively wielded the weapons he did. It's not a matter of determination and a high tolerance for pain. It's a matter of not being able to breathe because his lungs and heart capacity would have been severely compromised.

Bottom line: Richard's capability and mobility in life does not match the diagnosis Leicester has laid on that spine/its ribcage. Beyond that, I concur with what Carol has written. We need a three-dimensional scanning and representation of Richard's skeleton/body in life. We also need an expert modern medical analysis of his spine.

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > What evidence do either of you have that that degree of curvature would have created serious problems, other than "Well, it looks to me as though it might"?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower spine about three inches apart and the ribs where the spine should be. He would be severely crippled if his skeleton were aligned like that, and his deformity would be so marked that many people, especially his enemies, would have commented on it.
>
> Yes, that's my opinion, just as your contrary view is your opinion. That's why I want the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon--based not on bones flat on a table arranged by Jo Appleby but on a 3-D model. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of the finders, one of whom gleefully called him a hunchback, rather than an objective third party. I cannot reconcile the contemporary descriptions with the bones as arranged on that table.
>
> The degree of scoliosis they're attributing to him far exceeds that of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and could not, in my view, have been concealed by clothing. If the experts from other universities agree that the findings of the Leicester team are correct, then I will concede defeat. Until then, or until I see a 3-D skeleton, I will remain skeptical about the Leicester team's findings.
>
> Carol
>

That has been my point all along......we can conjecture about Richard's heart and lungs. But we cannot know. What we do know is that the youth and young man was very active, and seemingly not impaired on horseback, on foot, in battle, in court, in bed, etc. The body can make some amazing compensations, and allow those who "should" be impaired, to function normally. Had Richard lived, his middle and elder stages of life might have been filled with pain and discomfort.
I guess we "novices" cannot just flatly refuse to believe the EXPERTS, but, I am taking their pronouncements with a gross of salt.



On May 25, 2013, at 2:28 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



1. Look at a photo of how the heart and lungs are normally positioned in a man's ribcage.

2. Look at a photo -- any photo of the bones as laid out in the documentary, or the grave -- of Richard's spinal curvature.

3. Position Richard's ribs/ribcage as it would be per Leicester U.'s analysis.

4. Insert his heart and lungs within the ribcage Leicester has assigned him. Be sure to note the compression of his lungs and the compression of his heart due to the curvature of his spine.

5. Research how lungs inflate, and how compromised Richard's breathing would have been with his left lung compressed in his chest to that degree. Note also that his right lung's ability to inflate would also be compromised.

6. Research how unhappy/inefficient heart performance becomes when they do not have enough space to pump.

7. Tell me then how Richard could reasonably be expected to do what we know he did in life with the severely compressed cardio/respiratory capacity that's presented by the degree of scoliosis and organ displacement insisted upon in Leicester U's scenario. (They are also insisting the position of his vertebrae were not affected by the dissolution of his body or the way his torso and shoulders were crammed into his grave...all I can say is if someone curls up a cat (foreshortening his spine), and puts it in a grave, and someone digs up that cat 500 years later, they don't assume the cat walked curled up during its life, yet that's what Leicester is assuming about Richard's spine.

If Leicester U's "diagnosis" were correct, Richard would have been gasping for breath after climbing the stairway into Middleham's great hall. There is no way a man with that diagnosis could have effectively wielded the weapons he did. It's not a matter of determination and a high tolerance for pain. It's a matter of not being able to breathe because his lungs and heart capacity would have been severely compromised.

Bottom line: Richard's capability and mobility in life does not match the diagnosis Leicester has laid on that spine/its ribcage. Beyond that, I concur with what Carol has written. We need a three-dimensional scanning and representation of Richard's skeleton/body in life. We also need an expert modern medical analysis of his spine.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> Claire wrote:
> > What evidence do either of you have that that degree of curvature would have created serious problems, other than "Well, it looks to me as though it might"?
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower spine about three inches apart and the ribs where the spine should be. He would be severely crippled if his skeleton were aligned like that, and his deformity would be so marked that many people, especially his enemies, would have commented on it.
>
> Yes, that's my opinion, just as your contrary view is your opinion. That's why I want the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon--based not on bones flat on a table arranged by Jo Appleby but on a 3-D model. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of the finders, one of whom gleefully called him a hunchback, rather than an objective third party. I cannot reconcile the contemporary descriptions with the bones as arranged on that table.
>
> The degree of scoliosis they're attributing to him far exceeds that of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and could not, in my view, have been concealed by clothing. If the experts from other universities agree that the findings of the Leicester team are correct, then I will concede defeat. Until then, or until I see a 3-D skeleton, I will remain skeptical about the Leicester team's findings.
>
> Carol
>

One of my former bosses has scoliosis, and I never would have known about it except for the fact that I got a glance at his medical folder one day.
(I wasn't snooping -- I had to file some material in it.) I knew he'd had back problems -- every so often he'd have to take a day off because he couldn't
get behind the wheel of a car -- but he'd never assigned the word "scoliosis" to them. He also never wore a brace, that I could see (He probably
would have had less pain if he'd managed to drop about a hundred pounds.)

I imagine that Richard, if he were wearing a stiff-but-light padded jack underneath even stiffer plate armour, would have had the functional equivalent of a
Milwaukee brace or other sort of upper-torso brace as typically prescribed by doctors for scoliosis. A SCA friend of mine, with over a quarter-century of
tournament experience, has stated to me that while he himself isn't scoliotic, his back always felt better when braced up in a jack and armour.

Also, Richard's very slightness would have made it easier for him to deal with his condition -- he wouldn't have all that extra weight on his frame 24/7.
(Unlike many of us, including myself, I suspect the first words out of Richard's physician's mouth upon seeing him weren't "You need to lose weight." :-)

Tamara



________________________________________________________________________
1a. Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised King Buried in Haste
Posted by: "Paul Trevor Bale" paul.bale@... ptb2004uk
Date: Fri May 24, 2013 2:47 am ((PDT))

And I am still bewildered at the lack of contemporary reference to
Richard's so called physical deformity, or unusual appearance. NObody
said anything, and had the likes of Margaret Beaufort or Morton had any
idea that there was anything different or unusual about Richard's
physique they would have used it against him in rumour. I mean even
Colyngbourne gave not a hint!

But then More and Shakespeare told us all about it so it must be true!
Right?

Like last night's Anne Boleyn film, in spite of the evidence of her
final confession, where she again proclaimed her innocence, when she had
no hope of life, and feared for her soul, very important at the time to
one and all, up popped some 'historian' [male of course] saying that she
must have committed adultery, certainly with Smeaton and one other. Must
have been there then! [Have to say the best moment for me was when they
mentioned the accusation of witchcraft and up came Alison Weir!:-) ]
Paul



On 24/05/2013 04:42, wednesday_mc wrote:
> That's what Leicester Uni's osteoarchaeologist has been saying from the
beginning. However, she and the other authors of this paper are not medically
qualified to make a modern, expert analysis of Richard's spine.
>
> Until such time as a orthopaedic surgeon is allowed to look at his vertebrae
an analyze them, I don't believe we've been given the correct angle of his
scoliosis or how it would have affected him.
>
> The angle Leicester Uni staff are claiming would have severely compromised
Richard's breathing and his mobility. Rather than living the active life he did,
Richard would have been restricted to reclining on a couch and gasping for
breath because his lung and heart were so constricted.
>
> His documented mobility and their conclusions regarding the angle of spinal
curvature contradict each other.
>
> ~Weds
>
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
wrote:
>> Full study seems to be available now. In the section "The skeleton of King
>> Richard III" is this sentence --
>>
>> There was no evidence of substantial post-mortem bone displacement, and the
>> position of the vertebrae in the ground clearly reflected their position in
>> life and was not a product of the awkward burial position.
>>
>>
>> A J
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Wednesday McKenna
>> <wednesday.mac@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Three things jumped out at me from this article:
>>>
>>> 1. The full study will be available
>>> online<http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm>on Friday evening
>>> (May 24) here:
>>> http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm
>>>
>>> 2. Authors from Leicester Uni are: Richard Buckley, Mathew Morris,
>>> Jo Appleby, Turi King, Deirdre O'Sullivan and Lin Foxhall
>>>
>>> 3. The news article on Yahoo announcing this points out: "[Richard's body]
>>> was also too small for the 5-foot-8-inch (1.7 m) skeleton interred within:
>>> Richard's torso is twisted and his head propped up rather than laid flat.
>>> The body was also crammed against the north wall of the grave, perhaps
>>> because someone stood against the south wall to guide the body into its
>>> resting place. Whoever it was did not spend time afterward rearranging the
>>> body into a more symmetrical position."
>>>
>>> I'd really like to see a study reconstructing his spine as it was in life.
>>> Given the above (which is something I guess I've been whinging about for
>>> months now), we just don't have a clear picture of what he looked like when
>>> on his feet. All we have is a picture of him as his body was twisted and
>>> smashed into a too-small grave five centuries ago, and his vertebrae were
>>> laid out on a table a few months ago.
>>>
>>> I'm not saying he didn't have scoliosis: I'm saying until a medical expert
>>> and not an archaeologist does a study, we really don't know the correct
>>> angle or the impact on how he moved.
>>>
>>> Anyway, the news article is here:
>>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/battle-bruised-king-richard-iii-buried-hasty-grave-230501174.html
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: wednesday_mc
To:
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 8:28 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> 7. Tell me then how Richard could reasonably be expected to do what we
> know he did in life with the severely compressed cardio/respiratory
> capacity that's presented by the degree of scoliosis and organ
> displacement insisted upon in Leicester U's scenario.

Because scoliosis happens slowly, while the body is still growing and
plastic, so the organs reposition themselves a bit to accommodate it. And
you can manage perfectly well with one lung so long as you don't have other
breathing problems (like poor William IV, was it, who had scoliosis *and*
asthma, and consequently was a mess).

> (They are also insisting the position of his vertebrae were not affected
> by the dissolution of his body or the way his torso and shoulders were
> crammed into his grave...all I can say is if someone curls up a cat
> (foreshortening his spine), and puts it in a grave, and someone digs up
> that cat 500 years later, they don't assume the cat walked curled up
> during its life, yet that's what Leicester is assuming about Richard's
> spine.

No they're not. That was what they were thinking when Jo called him a
hunchback, but now they're not thinking that his spine was curled forwards
at all.

> If Leicester U's "diagnosis" were correct, Richard would have been gasping
> for breath after climbing the stairway into Middleham's great hall.

No. People who have that degree of scoliosis report that they have no
severe disabilities when they are as young as Richard was. Do what Tamara
and I did and go onto a scoliosis forum and actually read what people are
saying about their condition. I know it looks as though it *ought* to cause
severe disability, but the human body is amazingly adaptable.

> Bottom line: Richard's capability and mobility in life does not match the
> diagnosis Leicester has laid on that spine/its ribcage.

a) People who have that level of curvature report no serious
disability at age 32, and b) we don't actually know how mobile Richard was
in life. He was mobile enough to fight bravely at Bosworth, but the armour
would act like a corset so you'd expect him to be mobile in armour.

We have input from a *possible* very old dowager that he was a good dancer
when he was about 29 but we don't know for sure that that's for real.

Carol earlier:
> > And no, More did not mean a skinny but normal arm. He meant one that was abnormally shriveled, which, mercifully, the Leicester team indicates is not the case.)

Claire responded:
> I know that's what More meant, but it sounds to me as though More had misunderstood somebody else's comment about Richard's slender arms, and so had got it wrong.

Carol again:

"Somebody else" would be Vergil, whose manuscript More would have seen in the Latin version. Here's the somewhat later English version, translated by someone other than Vergil, but probably close enough for our purposes:

"Richard duke of Glocestre, who thowght of nothing but tyranny and crueltie, spak unto them in this sort: 'My lords, I have procuryd you all to be caulyd hyther this day for that onely cause that I might shew unto you in what great danger of death I stand; for by the speace of a few days by past nether nyght nor day can I rest, drynk, not eat, wherfor my blood by lyttle and lyttle decreaseth, my force fayleth, my breath shorteneth, and all the partes of my body do above measure, as you se (and with that he shewyd them his arme), faule away; which mischief veryly procedeth in me from that sorceres Elyzabeth the quene, who with hir witchcraft hath so enchantyd me that by thanoyance thereof I am dissolvyd.' To these sainges whan no man gave answer, as making lyttle to the purpose . . ."

In other words, Richard has called a meeting because he believes himself to be in danger of death by the queen's witchcraft, which has, among other things, caused all the parts of his body to "fall away," as proof of which he shows them his arm. (Note that Vergil says nothing about that arm having been withered since birth. He also has Hastings receiving his just desserts, not for any hand in the plot against Richard but for being one of the "smyters" of Edward of Lancaster--essentially, "crewel" Richard is the agent of God's retribution for this supposed murder!)

Anyway, Vergil, who not only was not present at the council meeting (he was a thirteen-year-old in Italy) but also, unlike More, was not a confidante of Morton, sometimes credited as the authority for the events at this meeting, appears to be the inventor of this fable, accompanied with the usual imaginary humanist dialogue, which More echoes and, if I'm right, ridicules.

Here is More's version:

"Then when he had sitten still a while, thus he began: what were they worthy to haue, that compasse & ymagine the distruccion of me, being so nere of blood vnto the king and protectour of his riall person & his realme. At this question, al the lordes sat sore astonied, musyng much by whome thys question should be ment, of which euery man wyst himselfe clere. The the lord chamberlen, as he that for the loue betwene them thoughte he might be boldest with him, aunswered and sayd, that thei wer worthye to bee punished as heighnous traitors whatsoeuer they were. And al the other affirmed the same. That is (quod he) yonder sorceres my brothers wife & other with her meaning the quene. At these wordes many of the other Lordes were gretly abashed that fauoured her. . . . Then said the protectour: ye shal al se in what wise that sorceres and that other witch of her counsel shoris wife with their affynite, haue by their sorcery & witchcraft wasted my body. And therwith he plucked vp hys doublet sleue to his elbow vpon hist left arme, where he shewed a werish withered arme and small, as it was neuer other. And thereupon euery mannes mind sore migaue them, well perceiuing that this matter was but a quarel. For wel thei wist, that the quene was to wise to go aboute any such folye. And also if she would, yet wold she of all folke leste make Shoris wife of counsaile, whom of al women she most hated, as that concubine whom the king her husband had most loued. And also no man was ther present, but wel knew that his harme was euer such since his birth."

Anyway, More takes the story that Richard showed his arm as proof that the sorceress queen has caused all his bedy to "fall away" and turns it into an arm that was withered since birth and adds Mistress Shore to the list of witches that Richard accuses. Both are trying to turn the plot against Richard's life into charges of witchcraft against the queen, but the differences in the dialogue and reactions (I cut out a lot of stuff about Hastings) show that the two accounts are somewhat differently imagined (and indicate, in passing, what each imagines about Hastings).

It's almost as if More is saying, "Your version isn't vivid enough. Let me see if I can make it more dramatic and darkly comic." Or that's how it looks to me.

Carol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 1:11 AM
> Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
> King Buried in Haste
>
>
> > The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower spine about three inches apart
>
> No, really. His thighbone is about 17" (has to be for them to have
> estimated his straight height as 5'8") and you can measure from that.
>
Carol responds:

Sorry to be unclear. I worded that badly. The thighbone has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I meant that the neck and lower spine are not in alignment. The neck is about three inches (as far as I can tell from a photograph) to the right of his lower spine viewer's left, his right). That can't be right as the deformity would have been impossible to conceal. So, too, with the ribs so far out of alignment that the left ribs (our right) align with the lower spine. He would look as if his whole left side were missing and his right side was bulging out.

Anyway, I've already said that I won't be convinced that the layout on the table is accurate until we have an objective analysis from someone unaffiliated with the university and based on a 3-D vertical model of the skeleton. There's really nothing else to say.

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> Sorry to be unclear. I worded that badly. The thighbone has nothing to do
> with what I'm talking about.

Sorry, I misunderstood you - I thought you were talking about the vertical
difference between his neck and lower spine, and I meant that if you take
his thighbone as a measure and assume it's 17" then *vertically* the
distance between his neck and lower spine, the span of the C-curve, is about
10".

> I meant that the neck and lower spine are not in alignment. The neck is
> about three inches (as far as I can tell from a photograph) to the right
> of his lower spine viewer's left, his right). That can't be right

You're right, it's not - his body in the grave doesn't show that sort of
sideways displacement. It's a bit hard to make out because either some of
his vertebrae are still invisible in the mud or his spine has come apart
into two pieces, but either way if you look at him in the grave his neck is
in line with his lumbar spine - it's the bit in between that's off kilter.

> as the deformity would have been impossible to conceal. So, too, with the
> ribs so far out of alignment that the left ribs (our right) align with the
> lower spine. He would look as if his whole left side were missing and his
> right side was bulging out.

From the position of his bones in the grave, and bearing in mind that the
weight of the earth has flattened his ribs diownwards, it looks as though
his left side would have looked fairly normal and the ribs on his right side
would have stuck forwards a bit. If that's right it means that if you'd
seen him naked his lower chest might have looked rather a strange shape, but
it probably wouldn't show under one of those puffy brocade doublets.

> Anyway, I've already said that I won't be convinced that the layout on the
> table is accurate

I don't think it is, very - I'm looking at the position of his bones in the
grave, in fairly clear aerial photographs here (halfway down page, with read
and white pole)
http://twistedsifter.com/2013/02/university-of-leicester-finds-skeleton-of-richard-iii/
and here (ignore the h-word for the sake of a good photo')
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/375614/Hunch-pays-off-Car-park-body-IS-Richard-III

These show a pronounced curve but not the sideways distortion you're seeing
on the table. And it looks as though he would have had the whole of the
left lung as normal, and about half of the right lung. The shape of the
C-curve we see on the table matches what we see in the grave, but they've
displaced everything above his lumbar spine a bit sideways - probably
because of the unnaturally big gap they've left between lumbar 4 and lumbar
5.

Btw he appears to have both his shoulders - if you'll pardon the
expression - hunched, which again suggests that when he was buried he was
wrapped tightly in a rather small shroud, pushing his shoulders into a sort
of double shrug.

Incidentally I've just found this
http://www.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2135799,00.html which is an
image of the bones at nearly twice the resolution I'd managed to find
before, and three times the resolution of the biggest colour image I found
on the net.

I've found the name of the guy who did the analysis of Richard's skeleton:
he's

Dr Piers Mitchell
President of the British Association for Biological Anthropology and
Osteoarchaeology (BABAO)
Division of Biological Anthropology
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology
University of Cambridge
The Henry Wellcome Building
Fitzwilliam Street
Cambridge CB2 1QH

He also works part-time as a consultant paediatric orthopaedic surgeon at
Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.

I corresponded with him a few months back - I wanted to know whether
Richard's curvature would necessarily have resulted in his *right* shoulder
being higher. If so, and given that the SoA portrait shows him with his
right shoulder lower, it would mean that the SoA portrait must be
mirror-reversed from its original. But he wouldn't talk much as he's signed
a gagging clause with Channel 4.

OTOH this article -
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/news/peterborough-surgeon-helped-identify-richard-iii-1-4753166 -
undated but obviously jsut after the Ch 4 documentary - has him saying that
he spent "a morning" examining Richard's spine, which may bot be long
enough, and being of the opinion that Richard would have been stooped, which
Leicester's own experts evidently disagreed with.

Not one for one word responses but in this case Weds - Brilliant!!
Paul

On 25/05/2013 20:28, wednesday_mc wrote:
> 1. Look at a photo of how the heart and lungs are normally positioned in a man's ribcage.
>
> 2. Look at a photo -- any photo of the bones as laid out in the documentary, or the grave -- of Richard's spinal curvature.
>
> 3. Position Richard's ribs/ribcage as it would be per Leicester U.'s analysis.
>
> 4. Insert his heart and lungs within the ribcage Leicester has assigned him. Be sure to note the compression of his lungs and the compression of his heart due to the curvature of his spine.
>
> 5. Research how lungs inflate, and how compromised Richard's breathing would have been with his left lung compressed in his chest to that degree. Note also that his right lung's ability to inflate would also be compromised.
>
> 6. Research how unhappy/inefficient heart performance becomes when they do not have enough space to pump.
>
> 7. Tell me then how Richard could reasonably be expected to do what we know he did in life with the severely compressed cardio/respiratory capacity that's presented by the degree of scoliosis and organ displacement insisted upon in Leicester U's scenario. (They are also insisting the position of his vertebrae were not affected by the dissolution of his body or the way his torso and shoulders were crammed into his grave...all I can say is if someone curls up a cat (foreshortening his spine), and puts it in a grave, and someone digs up that cat 500 years later, they don't assume the cat walked curled up during its life, yet that's what Leicester is assuming about Richard's spine.
>
> If Leicester U's "diagnosis" were correct, Richard would have been gasping for breath after climbing the stairway into Middleham's great hall. There is no way a man with that diagnosis could have effectively wielded the weapons he did. It's not a matter of determination and a high tolerance for pain. It's a matter of not being able to breathe because his lungs and heart capacity would have been severely compromised.
>
> Bottom line: Richard's capability and mobility in life does not match the diagnosis Leicester has laid on that spine/its ribcage. Beyond that, I concur with what Carol has written. We need a three-dimensional scanning and representation of Richard's skeleton/body in life. We also need an expert modern medical analysis of his spine.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>> Claire wrote:
>>> What evidence do either of you have that that degree of curvature would have created serious problems, other than "Well, it looks to me as though it might"?
>>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> The way the skeleton is placed on the table places his neck and lower spine about three inches apart and the ribs where the spine should be. He would be severely crippled if his skeleton were aligned like that, and his deformity would be so marked that many people, especially his enemies, would have commented on it.
>>
>> Yes, that's my opinion, just as your contrary view is your opinion. That's why I want the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon--based not on bones flat on a table arranged by Jo Appleby but on a 3-D model. Otherwise, it's just the opinion of the finders, one of whom gleefully called him a hunchback, rather than an objective third party. I cannot reconcile the contemporary descriptions with the bones as arranged on that table.
>>
>> The degree of scoliosis they're attributing to him far exceeds that of Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps and could not, in my view, have been concealed by clothing. If the experts from other universities agree that the findings of the Leicester team are correct, then I will concede defeat. Until then, or until I see a 3-D skeleton, I will remain skeptical about the Leicester team's findings.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> [snip] OTOH this article -
> http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/news/peterborough-surgeon-helped-identify-richard-iii-1-4753166 - undated but obviously jsut after the Ch 4 documentary - has him saying that he spent "a morning" examining Richard's spine, which may bot be long enough, and being of the opinion that Richard would have been stooped, which Leicester's own experts evidently disagreed with.
>
Carol responds:

It sounds as if A) he wasn't allowed nearly enough time and B) his findings were influenced by what the expected to see--exactly as the findings of Tanner and Wright were when they examined the bones in the urn in the 1930s.

The problem is that Richard is so famous--or should I say infamous thanks to Shakespeare's artistic license and inaccurate sources--that even scientists think they "know" all about him. Hence, Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!"

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that the bones as laid out on the table create a false impression. I think that the bones in the grave do, too. Look at the unnatural position of his head, which wasn't where Jo expected to find it.

A letter to the editor in the Ricardian Bulletin from a woman who has scoliosis says that she stands straighter than her husband, who has a normal spine, and that she doesn't suffer any pain because "your body reacts to [scoliosis] by building up muscles almost as if it is trying to push the bone back into a straight line." When Richard's muscles turned to dust (I'm trying to say it in a sensitive way), that the muscular support would have vanished and the bones could, especially given his semi-upright position and the help of gravity, have shifted into a more obvious and unnatural curve.

At any rate, I think Wedsnesday and her friend have shown us what the curve would have looked like in life--barely noticeable even when he was naked and completely concealed when he was dressed. But I still want to see a 3-D replica and an osteological analysis by a wholly objective expert (maybe one who doesn't know who the bones belonged to if that's possible) based on the 3-D reconstruction. As I keep saying, that's the only way we'll know what his spine--and ribs--were like in life. Laying out even a completely normal skeleton on a table puts bones in the wrong place and makes them 2-D instead of 3-D. Just compare the bones of the Australopithecine Lucy laid out on a table with the 3-D reconstruction to see what I mean.

Carol

Carol

Carol wrote:

"[I]...still want to see a 3-D replica and an osteological analysis by a wholly objective expert (maybe one who doesn't know who the bones belonged to if that's possible) based on the 3-D reconstruction. As I keep saying, that's the only way we'll know what his spine--and ribs--were like in life."

Weds writes:
Yes, please. Until then (and likely beyond then), we'll just go round and round, walzing with our separate opinions and guesses.

W.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
> > [snip] OTOH this article -
> > http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/local/news/peterborough-surgeon-helped-identify-richard-iii-1-4753166 - undated but obviously jsut after the Ch 4 documentary - has him saying that he spent "a morning" examining Richard's spine, which may bot be long enough, and being of the opinion that Richard would have been stooped, which Leicester's own experts evidently disagreed with.
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> It sounds as if A) he wasn't allowed nearly enough time and B) his findings were influenced by what the expected to see--exactly as the findings of Tanner and Wright were when they examined the bones in the urn in the 1930s.
>
> The problem is that Richard is so famous--or should I say infamous thanks to Shakespeare's artistic license and inaccurate sources--that even scientists think they "know" all about him. Hence, Jo Appleby's gleeful "He's a hunchback!"
>
> Anyway, I'm glad you agree that the bones as laid out on the table create a false impression. I think that the bones in the grave do, too. Look at the unnatural position of his head, which wasn't where Jo expected to find it.
>
> A letter to the editor in the Ricardian Bulletin from a woman who has scoliosis says that she stands straighter than her husband, who has a normal spine, and that she doesn't suffer any pain because "your body reacts to [scoliosis] by building up muscles almost as if it is trying to push the bone back into a straight line." When Richard's muscles turned to dust (I'm trying to say it in a sensitive way), that the muscular support would have vanished and the bones could, especially given his semi-upright position and the help of gravity, have shifted into a more obvious and unnatural curve.
>
> At any rate, I think Wedsnesday and her friend have shown us what the curve would have looked like in life--barely noticeable even when he was naked and completely concealed when he was dressed. But I still want to see a 3-D replica and an osteological analysis by a wholly objective expert (maybe one who doesn't know who the bones belonged to if that's possible) based on the 3-D reconstruction. As I keep saying, that's the only way we'll know what his spine--and ribs--were like in life. Laying out even a completely normal skeleton on a table puts bones in the wrong place and makes them 2-D instead of 3-D. Just compare the bones of the Australopithecine Lucy laid out on a table with the 3-D reconstruction to see what I mean.
>
> Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 6:23 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste


> The problem is that Richard is so famous--or should I say infamous thanks
> to Shakespeare's artistic license and inaccurate sources--that even
> scientists think they "know" all about him. Hence, Jo Appleby's gleeful
> "He's a hunchback!"

Yes.

> Anyway, I'm glad you agree that the bones as laid out on the table create
> a false impression.

Yes - I don't think it was ever meant to be more than an approximation which
enabled you to see all the bones clearly. But they did do a full
rconstruction of his bones as they would be in life which featured briefly
on the second Ch programme.

> I think that the bones in the grave do, too. Look at the unnatural
> position of his head, which wasn't where Jo expected to find it.

Yes, but I don't think it's where Jo *did* find it. If you look at how his
head is sitting relative to his neck in most of the photorgraphs you'll see
the earth has been cleared away all round it - looks like Jo dug it up in
order to inspect the damage, then put it back for the photographs, and she's
put it back *differently*.

> A letter to the editor in the Ricardian Bulletin from a woman who has
> scoliosis says that she stands straighter than her husband, who has a
> normal spine, and that she doesn't suffer any pain because "your body
> reacts to [scoliosis] by building up muscles almost as if it is trying to
> push the bone back into a straight line."

Depends how bad it is and in what area of the back. Richard's lumbar spine
looks OK which I think would be a big help, but the trouble with those
built-up muscles is that they're under tension and as you get older they can
go into spasm, which is what happenes to my friend who has scoliosis, who is
in hgis early 50s. 80% of the time he's fit to do any work not involving
heavy lifting - but the other 20% he's laid up, often in bed whimpering.
When he worked for me, I treated him to his own professional-quality TENS
machine as a health benefit. Yet, when he was in his 20s and 30s he used to
go fell-running.

> When Richard's muscles turned to dust (I'm trying to say it in a sensitive
> way), that the muscular support would have vanished and the bones could,
> especially given his semi-upright position and the help of gravity, have
> shifted into a more obvious and unnatural curve.

Yes. But it would only make the existing curve a bit more pronounced than
it already was - it wouldn't totally change its shape, or generate a curve
from a straight spine. Think of a string of wooden blocks strung on a
thread. If the blocks are lined up straight and you push down on them with
moderate pressure (bones aen't terribly heavy, so gravity would exert only
moderate pressure on his spine) they'll just lock togther, still straight.
But if you start by knocking some of them out to the side, then pressing
down from the top will cause the whole column to bow out sideways - but they
have to have been shifted out sideways to start with.

> At any rate, I think Wedsnesday and her friend have shown us what the
> curve would have looked like in life

Wednesday is a mate and I don't like arguing with her, but I *really* don't
think so. They've reconstructed a curve which is totally different from the
one in the grave - so far different that I don't think you could possibly
get from one to the other under the ground - and you can clearly see worn
surfaces on the vertebrae which don't fit they way they've reconstructed it.
And the curve they've created is like the one on the table in that it throws
his whole stance out and leaves him with his head out of true with his
pelvis, which would create a very noticeable distortion of posture and
probably significant mobility issues.

OTOH the curve which he has in the grave *looks* awful, but if you look at
photographs and reconstructions of other people who have curves just like
the one Richard has in the grave, as sharp and as dramatic as that, it
causes almost no visible external changes at all because it leaves the head
and shoulders still almost perfectly aligned with the pelvis, and about 80%
of normal lung capacity. It gives the person a proportionately short torso
and maybe some curious folds at the waist - but with clothes on that would
just pass as having proportionately long limbs.

I think Leicester's press team caused this problem by describing the
skeleton as having "severe" scoliosis. What we see in the grave is severe
in the sense of being a sharp and visually dramatic curve, when you look at
his actual skeleton - but because his lower and upper back are aligned it
wouldn't be very severe in terms of its effects on his mobility, or his
visual appearance when clothed.

> But I still want to see a 3-D replica

There's a 3D computer-generated image (rather than a physical model) on the
second Ch 4 programme - which, btw, reconstructs him with his lumbar spine
in prefect alignment with his pelvis.

From: "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Paper - Battle Bruised
King Buried in Haste



> And the curve they've created is like the one on the table in that it
> throws his whole stance out and leaves him with his head out of true with
> his pelvis, which would create a very noticeable distortion of posture and
> probably significant mobility issues.

Note incidentally that Wednesday herself said that their reconstruction
would result in Richard standing permanently at a slant, with a canted
pelvis and one leg shorter than the other - which so far as I can see from
the aerial shot of his bones on the table is not the case: his thigh bones
at least are the same length.

OTOH the curve which he has in the grave, dramatic though it looks, probably
wouldn't affect his pelvis or lower limbs at all.