ARTICLE: Centuries-old Coventry tapestry features a swipe at R3

Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Maryýs
Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a
slight hunchback, as did Richard..."

Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh,
and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on
the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology
lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.

Article here:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/centuries-old-coventry-tapestry-features-swipe-4012404

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/nag6jd9





--

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

Deep breaths and calm thoughts, deep breaths and calm
thoughts.....SCREECH!!!! Didn't work.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wednesday McKenna
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 9:27 PM
To:
Subject: ARTICLE: Centuries-old Coventry
tapestry features a swipe at R3

Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology
lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.

Article here:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/centuries-old-coventry-tapestry-features-swipe-4012404

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/nag6jd9

Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
> Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
> Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a slight hunchback, as did Richard..."
>
> Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh, and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.

Carol responds:

That's actually an interesting article, ignoring the reporter's belief that Richard had a deformed left hand (I think that the figure's hand is in an odd position because he's holding a coin between his thumb and forefinger) and that he was implicated in the murder of Henry VI. Note that the quoted historian, as opposed to the reporter, speaks only of *suspicions* that Richard was linked to it. I wish these reporters actually knew what they were writing about!

The rumor that Richard was involved in the murder of Henry VI wasn't circulated until Tudor times as far as I know. Even the Croyland chronicler, whose work wasn't publicly available and who only hints at a "tyrant" without pinpointing either Edward or Richard, was writing in 1486. The London chronicles, which may have implicated Richard directly (I don't remember and can't check now) were considerably later--1512 for the Great Chronicle, for example. I don't know whether Rous mentions it or whether his book was accessible to anyone but Henry (and, evidently, Vergil).

If the figure was indeed inserted to please Henry ca. 1495-1500, we can credit the success of Henry's propaganda campaign even before the chronicles made Richard's youthful "murder" of Henry official. The raised shoulder (as opposed to the "slight hunchback" attributed to the figure by the reporter) is consistent with Rous's description, and the face, to me, resembles that of the Broken Sword portrait, only that Richard has reddish brown hair:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61645000/jpg/_61645772_01085778_001.jpg

Anyway, it's interesting that the tapestry Richard, assuming that it's really intended to be him, is depicted as young and not bad looking. I don't know what to make of the snake and the coin/Judas interpretation, but that seems consistent with medieval thinking (so much for the idea that August 22, 1485, is the birth of the Renaissance in England!) and would fit the "monster born" idea that Henry was trying to perpetuate.

If the tapestry had been made ca. 1471, when Henry died, or 1484(?), when Richard moved him to a more fitting burial place, I would be suspicious of the idea that the figure depicted Richard. But inserting him into an extant tapestry during Henry Tudor's reign to please Henry is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. I'm just glad that they didn't make him look old, ugly, or seriously deformed.

Carol

Absolutely.....and to me, it looked like he had dislocated a finger or two...... God, I would love to know if any certified and reasonable scholars are actually raising the kind of questions posted here.

On May 25, 2013, at 9:35 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:



Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
> Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
> Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a slight hunchback, as did Richard..."
>
> Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh, and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.

Carol responds:

That's actually an interesting article, ignoring the reporter's belief that Richard had a deformed left hand (I think that the figure's hand is in an odd position because he's holding a coin between his thumb and forefinger) and that he was implicated in the murder of Henry VI. Note that the quoted historian, as opposed to the reporter, speaks only of *suspicions* that Richard was linked to it. I wish these reporters actually knew what they were writing about!

The rumor that Richard was involved in the murder of Henry VI wasn't circulated until Tudor times as far as I know. Even the Croyland chronicler, whose work wasn't publicly available and who only hints at a "tyrant" without pinpointing either Edward or Richard, was writing in 1486. The London chronicles, which may have implicated Richard directly (I don't remember and can't check now) were considerably later--1512 for the Great Chronicle, for example. I don't know whether Rous mentions it or whether his book was accessible to anyone but Henry (and, evidently, Vergil).

If the figure was indeed inserted to please Henry ca. 1495-1500, we can credit the success of Henry's propaganda campaign even before the chronicles made Richard's youthful "murder" of Henry official. The raised shoulder (as opposed to the "slight hunchback" attributed to the figure by the reporter) is consistent with Rous's description, and the face, to me, resembles that of the Broken Sword portrait, only that Richard has reddish brown hair:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61645000/jpg/_61645772_01085778_001.jpg

Anyway, it's interesting that the tapestry Richard, assuming that it's really intended to be him, is depicted as young and not bad looking. I don't know what to make of the snake and the coin/Judas interpretation, but that seems consistent with medieval thinking (so much for the idea that August 22, 1485, is the birth of the Renaissance in England!) and would fit the "monster born" idea that Henry was trying to perpetuate.

If the tapestry had been made ca. 1471, when Henry died, or 1484(?), when Richard moved him to a more fitting burial place, I would be suspicious of the idea that the figure depicted Richard. But inserting him into an extant tapestry during Henry Tudor's reign to please Henry is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. I'm just glad that they didn't make him look old, ugly, or seriously deformed.

Carol

As a Coventrian can I say that I would take anything printed in the Evening Telegraph with a pinch of salt. They couldn't even get the circumstances of my colleague's death correct, and any press statement you gave them always came out totally unrecognisable. 



________________________________
From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 25 May 2013, 21:27
Subject: ARTICLE: Centuries-old Coventry tapestry features a swipe at R3


Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a
slight hunchback, as did Richard..."

Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh,
and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on
the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology
lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.

Article here:
http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/centuries-old-coventry-tapestry-features-swipe-4012404

Tiny URL:
http://tinyurl.com/nag6jd9





--

  - *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

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2013 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Centuries-old Coventry
tapestry features a swipe at R3


> As a Coventrian can I say that I would take anything printed in the
> Evening Telegraph with a pinch of salt. They couldn't even get the
> circumstances of my colleague's death correct, and any press statement you
> gave them always came out totally unrecognisable.

I once did an interview with The Big Issue, which is supposed to be a
serious paper as papers go, and, OK, I wouldn't disagree with the basic
sentiments of it, but they included what was supposed to be a long verbatim
quote from me anbd I swear to you that other than the name of the person
being referrd to, the only words in it which were mine were "and" and "was".

Exactly Pammy. They just seem to believe the Tudor propaganda and don't question anything. Some of the research that has been done on this forum is amazing. Also, although some of the records from Richard's reign have been destroyed there are still some out there. What amazes me is when someone says well Crowland or Mancini says and Marie and Carol say well actually what he said was. They also quote sources not normally considered and think outside the box. My brain is zinging.

Over tha last few days Carol has questioned the translation of a Latin text. There could be lots of mis-translation of Latin texts out there and some members of this forum are flagging it up and the traditionalists are just accepting the same myths about Richard.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely.....and to me, it looked like he had dislocated a finger or two...... God, I would love to know if any certified and reasonable scholars are actually raising the kind of questions posted here.
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:35 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
> > Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
> > Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a slight hunchback, as did Richard..."
> >
> > Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh, and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's actually an interesting article, ignoring the reporter's belief that Richard had a deformed left hand (I think that the figure's hand is in an odd position because he's holding a coin between his thumb and forefinger) and that he was implicated in the murder of Henry VI. Note that the quoted historian, as opposed to the reporter, speaks only of *suspicions* that Richard was linked to it. I wish these reporters actually knew what they were writing about!
>
> The rumor that Richard was involved in the murder of Henry VI wasn't circulated until Tudor times as far as I know. Even the Croyland chronicler, whose work wasn't publicly available and who only hints at a "tyrant" without pinpointing either Edward or Richard, was writing in 1486. The London chronicles, which may have implicated Richard directly (I don't remember and can't check now) were considerably later--1512 for the Great Chronicle, for example. I don't know whether Rous mentions it or whether his book was accessible to anyone but Henry (and, evidently, Vergil).
>
> If the figure was indeed inserted to please Henry ca. 1495-1500, we can credit the success of Henry's propaganda campaign even before the chronicles made Richard's youthful "murder" of Henry official. The raised shoulder (as opposed to the "slight hunchback" attributed to the figure by the reporter) is consistent with Rous's description, and the face, to me, resembles that of the Broken Sword portrait, only that Richard has reddish brown hair:
>
> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61645000/jpg/_61645772_01085778_001.jpg
>
> Anyway, it's interesting that the tapestry Richard, assuming that it's really intended to be him, is depicted as young and not bad looking. I don't know what to make of the snake and the coin/Judas interpretation, but that seems consistent with medieval thinking (so much for the idea that August 22, 1485, is the birth of the Renaissance in England!) and would fit the "monster born" idea that Henry was trying to perpetuate.
>
> If the tapestry had been made ca. 1471, when Henry died, or 1484(?), when Richard moved him to a more fitting burial place, I would be suspicious of the idea that the figure depicted Richard. But inserting him into an extant tapestry during Henry Tudor's reign to please Henry is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. I'm just glad that they didn't make him look old, ugly, or seriously deformed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree completely. Not only the Latin, but the English as written. And, "we" surmise the strawberry analogy, again, I think that might have been Carol. Because Richard was so ignominiously treated, and the Tudor myth took a strangle hold over scholars for, ummmm 500 years, the whole Plantagenet Dynasty needs a complete re-study, as well as the things which have been found because of the dedicated Riccardians.

On May 26, 2013, at 4:41 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



Exactly Pammy. They just seem to believe the Tudor propaganda and don't question anything. Some of the research that has been done on this forum is amazing. Also, although some of the records from Richard's reign have been destroyed there are still some out there. What amazes me is when someone says well Crowland or Mancini says and Marie and Carol say well actually what he said was. They also quote sources not normally considered and think outside the box. My brain is zinging.

Over tha last few days Carol has questioned the translation of a Latin text. There could be lots of mis-translation of Latin texts out there and some members of this forum are flagging it up and the traditionalists are just accepting the same myths about Richard.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely.....and to me, it looked like he had dislocated a finger or two...... God, I would love to know if any certified and reasonable scholars are actually raising the kind of questions posted here.
>
> On May 25, 2013, at 9:35 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
> > Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
> > Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a slight hunchback, as did Richard..."
> >
> > Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh, and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That's actually an interesting article, ignoring the reporter's belief that Richard had a deformed left hand (I think that the figure's hand is in an odd position because he's holding a coin between his thumb and forefinger) and that he was implicated in the murder of Henry VI. Note that the quoted historian, as opposed to the reporter, speaks only of *suspicions* that Richard was linked to it. I wish these reporters actually knew what they were writing about!
>
> The rumor that Richard was involved in the murder of Henry VI wasn't circulated until Tudor times as far as I know. Even the Croyland chronicler, whose work wasn't publicly available and who only hints at a "tyrant" without pinpointing either Edward or Richard, was writing in 1486. The London chronicles, which may have implicated Richard directly (I don't remember and can't check now) were considerably later--1512 for the Great Chronicle, for example. I don't know whether Rous mentions it or whether his book was accessible to anyone but Henry (and, evidently, Vergil).
>
> If the figure was indeed inserted to please Henry ca. 1495-1500, we can credit the success of Henry's propaganda campaign even before the chronicles made Richard's youthful "murder" of Henry official. The raised shoulder (as opposed to the "slight hunchback" attributed to the figure by the reporter) is consistent with Rous's description, and the face, to me, resembles that of the Broken Sword portrait, only that Richard has reddish brown hair:
>
> http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/61645000/jpg/_61645772_01085778_001.jpg
>
> Anyway, it's interesting that the tapestry Richard, assuming that it's really intended to be him, is depicted as young and not bad looking. I don't know what to make of the snake and the coin/Judas interpretation, but that seems consistent with medieval thinking (so much for the idea that August 22, 1485, is the birth of the Renaissance in England!) and would fit the "monster born" idea that Henry was trying to perpetuate.
>
> If the tapestry had been made ca. 1471, when Henry died, or 1484(?), when Richard moved him to a more fitting burial place, I would be suspicious of the idea that the figure depicted Richard. But inserting him into an extant tapestry during Henry Tudor's reign to please Henry is not at all beyond the realm of possibility. I'm just glad that they didn't make him look old, ugly, or seriously deformed.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"One of the men appears to have a deformed left hand and a slight hunchback, as did Richard...."

What the heck???

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On May 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM, Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> Tapestry woven 1495-1500. "Historians say certain clues suggest that
> Richard is among characters in magnificent work of art in St Mary's
> Guildhall, " complete with, "...appears to have a deformed left hand and a
> slight hunchback, as did Richard..."
>
> Everyone now seems to be seeing Richard everywhere he never was before. Oh,
> and this one's looks to be a blonde, with his hair straight but curling on
> the ends. Take several deep breaths and try to remember your psychology
> lessons in transference and projection before you read this one.
>
> Article here:
> http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/centuries-old-coventry-tapestry-features-swipe-4012404
>
> Tiny URL:
> http://tinyurl.com/nag6jd9
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *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
>
>
>