Richard's missing feet...

Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet".

The writer of the article points out this story is intriguing because of aspects of other stories it incorporates such as the trough and the bones being thrown in the river. Who knows ......? Eileen

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet". [snip]

>
Carol responds:

As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.

Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.

Carol

I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.

Col

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet". [snip]
>
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.
>
> Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.
>
> Carol
>

Agreed. It is like knowing the answer before reading the crossword clue.

From: colyngbourne
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:04 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's missing feet...


I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.

Col

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> >
> > Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet". [snip]
>
> >
> Carol responds:
>
> As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.
>
> Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.
>
> Carol
>

Well unless this lady has come forward with the sole purpose of telling lies...why?...then it is indeed a massive coincidence that the story that has been handed down to her from previous generations of her family has Richard's feet being missing, This is all very strange and leads me to ask what was the evidence that led to the belief that Richard's feet had been sliced through in the 19th century by building work/a trench being cut? The part of the story that has the feet then being thrown into the river ties up with the legend that Richard's remains were thrown in there at a later date. Could this indeed be how this legend was born? Of course as we know legends/local stories are bitches...you never know if they are lies and need to be taken with a pinch of salt and invented for the gullible or whether they are actually true but this story has got me wondering. Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet". [snip]
> >
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.
> >
> > Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.

I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."

I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.

Carol

Carol

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> [snip]
The part of the story that has the feet then being thrown into the river ties up with the legend that Richard's remains were thrown in there at a later date. Could this indeed be how this legend was born? [snip]

Carol responds:

No. That legend was born because John Speed was looking in the wrong place for Richard's grave--Blackfriars instead of Greyfriars. This story cannot have been in the woman's family for generations--a mere three generations at that. It's just a conflation of three lies and a fact that the woman for reasons of her own has decided to "explain." I'm really getting upset about this as you can probably see.

Carol

That's a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this new legend' as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.

Sandra

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.

Carol responds:

Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.

I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."

I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.

Carol responds:

A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.

B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.

C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?

D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.

E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.

F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.

Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?

Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.

Carol

Well said Carol, we have had enough rumours regarding Richard and his body parts just lately on this forum.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
>
> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
>
> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
>
> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
>
> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
>
> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
>
> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
>
> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
>
> Carol
>

And this is all part of the dreadful thing that people do, was it
Wellington who said to always 'print the legend'?
Paul

On 14/06/2013 14:48, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Well unless this lady has come forward with the sole purpose of telling lies...why?...then it is indeed a massive coincidence that the story that has been handed down to her from previous generations of her family has Richard's feet being missing, This is all very strange and leads me to ask what was the evidence that led to the belief that Richard's feet had been sliced through in the 19th century by building work/a trench being cut? The part of the story that has the feet then being thrown into the river ties up with the legend that Richard's remains were thrown in there at a later date. Could this indeed be how this legend was born? Of course as we know legends/local stories are bitches...you never know if they are lies and need to be taken with a pinch of salt and invented for the gullible or whether they are actually true but this story has got me wondering. Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>> I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
>>
>> Col
>>
>> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>>>> Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "knows what happened to the feet". [snip]
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.
>>>
>>> Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Don't usually post short responses, but totally agree with Christine.
Very well put Carol.
Paul

On 14/06/2013 16:27, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> Well said Carol, we have had enough rumours regarding Richard and his body parts just lately on this forum.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>> Thatâ¬"s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this â¬Ünew legendâ¬" as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
>>
>> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
>>
>> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
>>
>> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
>>
>> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
>>
>> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
>>
>> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
>>
>> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Totally agree. Hasn't it already been established by the Leicester team that the feet and lower legs were clearly not removed around the time of death but at some later period?
Marie


--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Don't usually post short responses, but totally agree with Christine.
> Very well put Carol.
> Paul
>
> On 14/06/2013 16:27, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> > Well said Carol, we have had enough rumours regarding Richard and his body parts just lately on this forum.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >>> That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> >> Carol responds:
> >>
> >> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
> >>
> >> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
> >>
> >> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
> >>
> >> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
> >>
> >> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
> >>
> >> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
> >>
> >> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
> >>
> >> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
> >>
> >> Carol
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I'd also imagine that the archaeologists can tell from examining the ends of the leg bones, and the earth at the end of the grave, whether earth-moving equipment from the 1800s removed the feet, or if a medieval sword or other implement did the work in 1485.

Richard's body was also on display for three days before burial. I would think someone viewing it would have mentioned his feet were missing, if they were. Methinks it would have been just too good a detail to leave out of the chronicles.

The story also implies that a hostile crowd gathered to see the king's body being brought into Leicester. If the horse carrying him was placed at the end in the baggage train of Henry's army, it's possible that news of the king's death had spread quickly enough that a crowd could have gathered to see his body brought in and ascertain for themselves if the news was true.

I can imagine the crowd standing there in relative silence. I cannot imagine the citizenry turning into a jeering mob that dragged the body of their anointed king off of the horse to damage it further and parade it naked through the streets. That, surely, would have been burned into memory -- and mentioned in the chronicles -- if it had happened.

We have the record that he was brought naked into Leicester and paraded through the streets, but there's no mention of anyone doing it except Henry's men, at Henry's order, and their forcing one who had served Richard to ride with him, weeping.

That doesn't sound like a scene to inspire further assaults from the mob.

~Weds

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
>
> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
>
> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
>
> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
>
> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
>
> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
>
> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
>
> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
>
> Carol
>

I thought it was the man who shot Liberty Valance :-)



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 17:09
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's missing feet...

 
And this is all part of the dreadful thing that people do, was it
Wellington who said to always 'print the legend'?
Paul

On 14/06/2013 14:48, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> Well unless this lady has come forward with the sole purpose of telling lies...why?...then it is indeed a massive coincidence that the story that has been handed down to her from previous generations of her family has Richard's feet being missing, This is all very strange and leads me to ask what was the evidence that led to the belief that Richard's feet had been sliced through in the 19th century by building work/a trench being cut? The part of the story that has the feet then being thrown into the river ties up with the legend that Richard's remains were thrown in there at a later date. Could this indeed be how this legend was born? Of course as we know legends/local stories are bitches...you never know if they are lies and need to be taken with a pinch of salt and invented for the gullible or whether they are actually true but this story has got me wondering. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>> I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
>>
>> Col
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@> wrote:
>>>> Just received my Bulletin and had a quick look...this story grabbed my attention. As we know the Victorians got the blame for the missing feet after cutting a trench which took out the feet. But a local lady, Sally, who grew up near the bridge has come forward to say that the missing feet were no surprise to her because as a child her mother had told her a story that her mother had told her..."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge". Sally suggests that the story had been known in her family for at least 75 years and she in turn has passed it to her own granddaughter who is very happy as she "kno ws
what happened to the feet". [snip]
>>> Carol responds:
>>>
>>> As you implied in the paragraph I snipped, it sounds like a blend of three legends, one extremely doubtful (the head banging against the bridge) and two disproved (horse trough and River Soar) with the missing feet thrown in for good measure. Amazing what people will believe.
>>>
>>> Since the archaeological evidence that he was placed in the grave feet first, which is why he was in a semi-reclining position, we can safely disregard this story.
>>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Me too.  I simply can't believe that if it was true, we wouldn't have heard about this 4 or 500 years ago.  Surely at least one of the chroniclers or the Tudor historians would have made a great deal of the fact ("they hated him so much they chopped his feet off")



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 17:11
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's missing feet...


Don't usually post short responses, but totally agree with Christine.
Very well put Carol.
Paul

On 14/06/2013 16:27, christineholmes651@... wrote:
> Well said Carol, we have had enough rumours regarding Richard and his body parts just lately on this forum.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
>>> Thatâ¬"s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this â¬Ünew legendâ¬" as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
>>
>> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
>>
>> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
>>
>> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
>>
>> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
>>
>> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
>>
>> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
>>
>> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
>>
>> Carol
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!


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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well said, Carol.

________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:


Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed
with each retelling.

I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."

I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.



Carol

Um - the only earth-moving equipment in the 1800s would have been a shovel! But I agree with your point.



________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 18:57
Subject: Re: Richard's missing feet...


 

I'd also imagine that the archaeologists can tell from examining the ends of the leg bones, and the earth at the end of the grave, whether earth-moving equipment from the 1800s removed the feet, or if a medieval sword or other implement did the work in 1485.

Richard's body was also on display for three days before burial. I would think someone viewing it would have mentioned his feet were missing, if they were. Methinks it would have been just too good a detail to leave out of the chronicles.

The story also implies that a hostile crowd gathered to see the king's body being brought into Leicester. If the horse carrying him was placed at the end in the baggage train of Henry's army, it's possible that news of the king's death had spread quickly enough that a crowd could have gathered to see his body brought in and ascertain for themselves if the news was true.

I can imagine the crowd standing there in relative silence. I cannot imagine the citizenry turning into a jeering mob that dragged the body of their anointed king off of the horse to damage it further and parade it naked through the streets. That, surely, would have been burned into memory -- and mentioned in the chronicles -- if it had happened.

We have the record that he was brought naked into Leicester and paraded through the streets, but there's no mention of anyone doing it except Henry's men, at Henry's order, and their forcing one who had served Richard to ride with him, weeping.

That doesn't sound like a scene to inspire further assaults from the mob.

~Weds

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> A) It's included with details that we know to be nonsense.
>
> B) Rous, Croyland, et al. did get details wrong, of course (twenty months in his mother's womb or "Richmond" charging at Bosworth being the most notorious), but they would not have left out so humiliating a detail if they knew it.
>
> C) The only people who could have known such a detail were the Grey Friars, who presumably had no descendants, and the grave diggers, who would have made it known to the whole kingdom through rumor. Yet somehow no one has heard it until now? Who are this woman's family that they alone would be privy to this secret, mingled as it is with what we know to be false legends?
>
> D) The archaeologists have already provided a perfectly logical and sensible explanation, the excavation of the Victorian building going right where his feet were.
>
> E) The body was put in the grave feet first. It's the head and shoulders that were scrunched in.
>
> F) The friars would never have allowed the feet to be cut off, especially the feet of an anointed king.
>
> Hasn't Richard been humiliated enough? Must we be as gullible as those who believed Sir Thomas More?
>
> Sorry to be so vehement, but our duty as Ricardians is to counter the legends and seek the truth, not to spread new rumors from such a doubtful source. Please reread the archaeologists' article and their explanation before considering this highly improbable story as having any merit whatever.
>
> Carol
>

I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.

I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
>
> Sandra
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
>
> I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
>
> I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
>
>
>
>
>

I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
Marie



--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.
>
> I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.
>
> --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> >
> > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> >
> > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.

It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.

To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...

I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.
> >
> > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.
> >
> > --- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > >
> > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > >
> > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Good morning Eileen,
What a lovely post. I totally agree. It does shock me when some folks get so mean and bitter, castigating the thoughts and ideas of others, while spouting things which are often offensive. If we can all keep an open mind, it is so much easier.

On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:



Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.

It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.

To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...

I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.
> >
> > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thatýýýs a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ýýýnew legendýýý as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > >
> > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > >
> > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Marie wrote:

"I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in
the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a
child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also
told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered
her mind since the body was discovered."

Doug here:
I lean towards what you wrote in that last sentence. I've read reports of
studies where people were shown to have "remembered" things that had
happened that - hadn't; and usually without even realizing it.
Variations on Gollum's justifying his possession of the Ring, perhaps?
Doug

Hear, hear! Well said, Eileen.

Sandra

From: EILEEN BATES
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 4:20 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's missing feet...


Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.

It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.

To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...

I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
> Marie
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.
> >
> > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > >
> > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > >
> > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >


.

Thank you Pamela....I may well take a little break from here...it quite leaves a bad taste in the mouth and all so unnecessary...It's not as if I said Richard used small defenceless kittens for target practice....but there you go. A lesson learned....Eileen
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Good morning Eileen,
> What a lovely post. I totally agree. It does shock me when some folks get so mean and bitter, castigating the thoughts and ideas of others, while spouting things which are often offensive. If we can all keep an open mind, it is so much easier.
>
> On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
>
> It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
>
> To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
>
> I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum" because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it openly on the internet as such.
> > >
> > > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from before 75 yrs ago.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So, judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to discussion.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was found.
> > > >
> > > > Carol responds:
> > > >
> > > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones. For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More. And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family, who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > > >
> > > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > > >
> > > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even consider printing such tripe.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Agreed...but I also believe that local legends should not always be dismissed as some of them may contain a kernel of truth. I recall reading the JA-Hs book Eleanor a local legend existed about one of the houses that EB had lived in...the story went that long ago a queen had lived there. Anyway I shall say no more....
--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> Marie wrote:
>
> "I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in
> the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a
> child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also
> told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered
> her mind since the body was discovered."
>
> Doug here:
> I lean towards what you wrote in that last sentence. I've read reports of
> studies where people were shown to have "remembered" things that had
> happened that - hadn't; and usually without even realizing it.
> Variations on Gollum's justifying his possession of the Ring, perhaps?
> Doug
>

I know how you feel about needing to take a break from discussions that get
us riled up for one reason or another (have just done that with another
list - not this one). I'm convinced that the difficulty arises from this
text-only way of communicating, and that posters who come across as brusque
(or worse) frequently don't realize the impact their words may have on
someone else who has only the words to go by.

Don't stay away too long!

A J


On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM, EILEEN BATES <
eileenbates147@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Thank you Pamela....I may well take a little break from here...it quite
> leaves a bad taste in the mouth and all so unnecessary...It's not as if I
> said Richard used small defenceless kittens for target practice....but
> there you go. A lesson learned....Eileen
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Good morning Eileen,
> > What a lovely post. I totally agree. It does shock me when some folks
> get so mean and bitter, castigating the thoughts and ideas of others, while
> spouting things which are often offensive. If we can all keep an open mind,
> it is so much easier.
>
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...<mailto:
> eileenbates147@...>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a
> polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not
> expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from
> others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research
> Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many
> excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is
> suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it
> rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion.
> The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
> >
> > It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here
> for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave.
> If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner
> not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
> >
> > To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my
> post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock
> wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
> >
> > I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's
> creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody
> cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain
> civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
> > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial
> in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a
> child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also
> told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered
> her mind since the body was discovered.
> > > Marie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum"
> because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it
> openly on the internet as such.
> > > >
> > > > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying
> c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be
> easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I
> agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure
> that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not
> dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just
> because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story
> from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from
> before 75 yrs ago.
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:
> %40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thatýýýs a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland
> recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am
> prepared to give this ýýýnew legendýýý as much benefit of the doubt as
> others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So,
> judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to
> discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sandra
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<
> http://40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this
> story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family
> over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come
> from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it
> very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was
> found.
> > > > >
> > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and
> contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones.
> For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly
> any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or
> the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their
> writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More.
> And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if
> the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was
> missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family,
> who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They
> couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the
> missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the
> woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have
> expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > > > >
> > > > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or
> it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > > > >
> > > > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even
> consider printing such tripe.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

No I won't AJ....:0)

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I know how you feel about needing to take a break from discussions that get
> us riled up for one reason or another (have just done that with another
> list - not this one). I'm convinced that the difficulty arises from this
> text-only way of communicating, and that posters who come across as brusque
> (or worse) frequently don't realize the impact their words may have on
> someone else who has only the words to go by.
>
> Don't stay away too long!
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Pamela....I may well take a little break from here...it quite
> > leaves a bad taste in the mouth and all so unnecessary...It's not as if I
> > said Richard used small defenceless kittens for target practice....but
> > there you go. A lesson learned....Eileen
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good morning Eileen,
> > > What a lovely post. I totally agree. It does shock me when some folks
> > get so mean and bitter, castigating the thoughts and ideas of others, while
> > spouting things which are often offensive. If we can all keep an open mind,
> > it is so much easier.
> >
> > >
> > > On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@<mailto:
> > eileenbates147@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a
> > polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not
> > expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from
> > others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research
> > Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many
> > excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is
> > suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it
> > rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion.
> > The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
> > >
> > > It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here
> > for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave.
> > If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner
> > not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
> > >
> > > To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my
> > post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock
> > wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
> > >
> > > I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's
> > creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody
> > cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain
> > civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
> > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial
> > in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a
> > child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also
> > told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered
> > her mind since the body was discovered.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum"
> > because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it
> > openly on the internet as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying
> > c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be
> > easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I
> > agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure
> > that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not
> > dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just
> > because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story
> > from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from
> > before 75 yrs ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That’s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland
> > recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am
> > prepared to give this ‘new legend’ as much benefit of the doubt as
> > others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So,
> > judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to
> > discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<
> > http://40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this
> > story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family
> > over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come
> > from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it
> > very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was
> > found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and
> > contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones.
> > For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly
> > any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or
> > the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their
> > writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More.
> > And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if
> > the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was
> > missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family,
> > who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They
> > couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the
> > missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the
> > woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have
> > expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or
> > it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even
> > consider printing such tripe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

--- In , mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered her mind since the body was discovered.
> Marie

Carol responds:

You're probably right that the woman's memory is muddled and that she didn't deliberately invent the story, but her motives are not really relevant and I'm sorry that I brought them up.

The problem is that there is apparently no more truth in this brand-new rumor than in the other three associated with it in this woman's mind. For reasons I've already specified, I think it should be discarded before it becomes part of the legend.

Keeping an open mind about, say, the precontract or the plot that led to Hastings' death is one thing. But an open mind about a new rumor that this woman says has been in her family for three generations (three? It suddenly popped up sixty years ago?) is quite another. We might as well keep an open mind about Richard's being two years in his mother's womb.

Carol

"EILEEN BATES" wrote:
>
>
> Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
>
> It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
>
> To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
>
> I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen

Carol responds:

That was me. I called it "tripe." I apologize for doing so, and I certainly didn't mean to sound "vitriolic" or to upset anyone. I was, as I said, upset myself because I didn't want Richard to experience yet more posthumous humiliation. I did post a more "measured" response later and hope it was one of the ones you listed.

I wasn't referring to your post or to the article itself, which I haven't read (we get our Bulletins late in the U.S.), only to the rumor, mingled with three false or doubtful ones, when I called it "tripe" that should not be repeated outside this forum. I still hold that view, but I'm sorry that I expressed it in a way that offended you or anyone else on this forum.

"Poisoned atmosphere" is a bit extreme, though, Eileen. I was just expressing my feelings and defending Richard's reputation. I didn't in any way imply that you should not express your own views or post whatever you feel like posting. The idea that the friars might have cut off Richard's feet disturbed me profoundly, and I was expressing my distress at the idea that such an idea my be circulated on the Internet and become "fact."

But, again, my sincere apologies for hurting your feelings, which was never and would never be my intention.

Carol

Carol...I feel we should put this subject to bed now...but I must clarify one thing. If you check with my first message no where does it say that's the friars cut the feet off. What I wrote/copied from the Bulletiin was that "Richard was carried into Leicester over the west bridge where a mob had gathered....." Quite a difference....Eileen


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "EILEEN BATES" wrote:
> >
> >
> > Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion. The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
> >
> > It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave. If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
> >
> > To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
> >
> > I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
>
> Carol responds:
>
> That was me. I called it "tripe." I apologize for doing so, and I certainly didn't mean to sound "vitriolic" or to upset anyone. I was, as I said, upset myself because I didn't want Richard to experience yet more posthumous humiliation. I did post a more "measured" response later and hope it was one of the ones you listed.
>
> I wasn't referring to your post or to the article itself, which I haven't read (we get our Bulletins late in the U.S.), only to the rumor, mingled with three false or doubtful ones, when I called it "tripe" that should not be repeated outside this forum. I still hold that view, but I'm sorry that I expressed it in a way that offended you or anyone else on this forum.
>
> "Poisoned atmosphere" is a bit extreme, though, Eileen. I was just expressing my feelings and defending Richard's reputation. I didn't in any way imply that you should not express your own views or post whatever you feel like posting. The idea that the friars might have cut off Richard's feet disturbed me profoundly, and I was expressing my distress at the idea that such an idea my be circulated on the Internet and become "fact."
>
> But, again, my sincere apologies for hurting your feelings, which was never and would never be my intention.
>
> Carol
>

--- In , "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> Carol...I feel we should put this subject to bed now...but I must clarify one thing. If you check with my first message no where does it say that's the friars cut the feet off. What I wrote/copied from the Bulletiin was that "Richard was carried into Leicester over the west bridge where a mob had gathered....." Quite a difference....Eileen

Carol responds:

Here's what you wrote:

."Richard was carried into Leicester over the West Bridge where a mob
had congregated. Until then he had been on the back of a horse but was
transferred to a horse trough, banging his head on the bridge as they pulled him from the horse. Unfortunately the trough was too short for him to be laid in so they cut off his feet to make him fit. His feet were then thrown into the river from the bridge".

I interpreted the unspecified "they" as the friars since they were the ones who buried him and they would have placed him in the too-short "horse trough" and they certainly would not have countenanced the cutting off of a body's feet. I do see now that "they" refers to the mob, but I agree with Hilary that there was no mob, only citizens watching in shock and perhaps anguish as their dead king was carried by. (The idea that anyone jeered or reviled him or that the crowd so much as touched his body does not appear in any contemporary chronicle.) And since *there was no horse trough* there was no "need" to cut off the feet in any case.

But the story is, as I said, a blend of rumors mixed with the new information about the missing feet. Sorry about my confusion (and especially for hurting your feelings), but I absolutely agree that we should drop the subject. The less said about this topic, the better.

Carol

 No don't go away - I agree with AJ and sometimes I've gone to bed thinking points I've made may have sounded on the verge of rude, when I was only making a point.
 
To re-inforce what you and some others have said, my dad used to go on about the Battle of Naseby (he loved history anyway). It was only years' after he died that I discovered his mother's family actually came from Naseby and were living there during the seventeenth century. So yes it gets blurred and twisted with the memory and the telling - but you never know. 


________________________________
From: EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2013, 16:41
Subject: Re: Richard's missing feet...

 

No I won't AJ....:0)

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I know how you feel about needing to take a break from discussions that get
> us riled up for one reason or another (have just done that with another
> list - not this one). I'm convinced that the difficulty arises from this
> text-only way of communicating, and that posters who come across as brusque
> (or worse) frequently don't realize the impact their words may have on
> someone else who has only the words to go by.
>
> Don't stay away too long!
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM, EILEEN BATES <
> eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you Pamela....I may well take a little break from here...it quite
> > leaves a bad taste in the mouth and all so unnecessary...It's not as if I
> > said Richard used small defenceless kittens for target practice....but
> > there you go. A lesson learned....Eileen
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Good morning Eileen,
> > > What a lovely post. I totally agree. It does shock me when some folks
> > get so mean and bitter, castigating the thoughts and ideas of others, while
> > spouting things which are often offensive. If we can all keep an open mind,
> > it is so much easier.
> >
> > >
> > > On Jun 15, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@<mailto:
> > eileenbates147@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marie...thank you and others who have responded to this story in a
> > polite and measured way which was what I was hoping for. What I was not
> > expecting was the vitriolic almost frothing at the mouth response from
> > others. This story came from an article written by Lynda Pidgeon, Research
> > Officer for the Bulletin, a staunch Ricardian and who has contributed many
> > excellence articles in that publication. If Lynda thinks this story is
> > suitable to be printed in the Bulletin then that is fine by me. To call it
> > rubbish or whatever term was used is rude and totally out of proportion.
> > The arrogance of some people on here I cannot believe.
> > >
> > > It is such responses to my post that make people afraid to post on here
> > for fear of being ridiculed and/or harangued and makes other posters leave.
> > If I post in a courteous manner l expect to be treated in a likewise manner
> > not ticked off like I am a naughty 5 year old.
> > >
> > > To the comment made by one poster that they were "upset" by my
> > post....how do you think some posters felt when the subject of the buttock
> > wound was discussed on here at great length and in detail...
> > >
> > > I really really cannot be doing with this poisonous atmosphere that's
> > creeps on here from time to time. It's totally unnecessary. Everybody
> > cannot agree with everybody else all of the time but at least remain
> > civil...thank you. Doh...Eileen
> > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, mariewalsh2003 <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I suspect the lady isn't lying, and did hear the stories of the burial
> > in the horse trough and the bones being thrown in the Soar when she was a
> > child, and the memory plays funny tricks. Now she's convinced she was also
> > told they lopped the feet off as well but that could actually have entered
> > her mind since the body was discovered.
> > > > Marie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, Sandra. The fact is that it is "already outside this forum"
> > because it is printed in the Ricardian Bulletin, and anyone can discuss it
> > openly on the internet as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not prepared to assume that this woman is a) psychic b) lying
> > c) confused, just because an extra element has emerged that cannot be
> > easily explained. I think I am prepared to have an open mind - mostly I
> > agree that no chronicle mentions it, also the scientists seemed quite sure
> > that the feet were removed hundreds of years post-mortem, but I will not
> > dismiss *yet* the possibility that there is some truth in this story. Just
> > because the letter-writer didn't write that her grandmother had the story
> > from previous generations, doesn't mean that it isn't an old story from
> > before 75 yrs ago.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:
> > %40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thatâ¬"s a bit too emphatic, I think, Carol. If Rous and Croyland
> > recorded everything and got it all right it would indeed be a miracle. I am
> > prepared to give this â¬Ünew legendâ¬" as much benefit of the doubt as
> > others. It is only tripe if it is incorrect, and that cannot be proved. So,
> > judgement must be reserved, and the collective mind should be open to
> > discussion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sandra
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<
> > http://40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that there is a conflation of various legends in this
> > story, but the woman who mentions it, says that it was told in her family
> > over generations - so where did the detail about the missing feet come
> > from? No-one knew he was missing his foot bones until the dig. I find it
> > very coincidental that that part of the "story" fits exactly with what was
> > found.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carol responds:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nevertheless, the story is only about seventy-five years old and
> > contains at least two provably false elements and two very suspicious ones.
> > For crying out loud, let's not add to the legends! We've seen how quickly
> > any statement unfavorable to Richard becomes "fact." Believe me, Rous or
> > the Croyland chronicler would have included that statement in their
> > writings if it were true. We'd have heard it mocked by Vergil and More.
> > And, as I said, he was put in the grave feet first. It sounds to me as if
> > the woman is confused at best. As you say, *no one* knew that he was
> > missing his foot bones until the discovery. How could this woman's family,
> > who also "knew" three *legends*, "know" that the feet were missing? They
> > couldn't. So either they're psychic but got the explanation wrong or the
> > missing feet detail mixed with the legends is coincidence or someone in the
> > woman's family made it up or misremembered it. You know how the rumors have
> > expanded and blossomed with each retelling.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I implore you not to repeat this new legend outside this forum or
> > it will be all over the Internet as "fact."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am disappointed that the editors of the Bulletin would even
> > consider printing such tripe.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>