worms...

Re: recent research on R3 remains&.A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal worms&.common among people of that time&.I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D

Re: recent research on R3 remains&.A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal worms&.common among people of that time&.I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D

Here's the AFP article on the subject -- though I rather doubt its conclusions:

"Thy broken faith hath made the prey for worms," evil Richard III is told by an accuser in Shakespeare's drama.

The outburst turns out to be true in more ways than the playwright could ever have imagined.

Scientists have discovered that the hunchback king was infected with intestinal parasites, probably as a result of yucky mediaeval hygiene.

The remains of Richard III, who ruled from 1483-1485, were founded beneath a car park last year in the central English city of Leicester.

Since then, forensic scientists have been poring over the extraordinary find, seeking further details of the life and times of this controversial monarch.

Sifting through the sediment, University of Cambridge researchers say they have found "multiple" microscopic eggs of a parasite in the lower region of the spine, where the royal innards would have been in life.

"These results show that Richard was infected with roundworm in his intestines," they reported on Wednesday in The Lancet.

"Roundworm is spread by the faecal contamination of food by dirty hands, or use of faeces as a crop fertiliser."

The roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides, is a particularly unpleasant parasite that is common in parts of Africa and Latin America today.

Eggs swallowed by humans hatch in the intestine, and burrow through the gut wall and migrate to the lungs through the blood system.

They are then coughed up and swallowed again, entering the stomach and intestine for a second time, where they mature into adult worms some as long as 35 centimetres (14 inches), "swimming" against the flow of liquids and particles in the gut.

An adult female can produce around 200,000 eggs a day, which are then passed on in faeces, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

In large infections, the worms can cause peritonitis, enlargement of the liver or spleen or intestinal blockage.

A lively panoply of intestinal parasites roamed England in the 15th century.

They included whipworm, liver fluke, beef tapeworm, pork tapeworm and fish tapeworm, which are transmitted through uncooked, or poorly cooked, infected meat.

None of these was found in Richard's grave, though.

"We would expect nobles of this period to have eaten meats such as beef, pork and fish regularly," says the probe, led by Piers Mitchell, a biological anthropologist

"This finding might suggest that his food was cooked thoroughly, which would have prevented the transmission of these parasites."

Vilified in Shakespeare's play -- unfairly say some -- as a murderous hunchback, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

He was buried without recorded ceremony in nearby Leicester.

His death ended the "War of the Roses," the civil war between the families of Lancaster and York named after their respective heraldic symbols of the red and the white rose.

--- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: recent research on R3 remains….A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal worms….common among people of that time….I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D
>

By the way, most cases of this go away by themselves and don't cause any noticeable effects: http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/trichinosis/overview.html


Tamara

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the AFP article on the subject -- though I rather doubt its conclusions:
>
> "Thy broken faith hath made the prey for worms," evil Richard III is told by an accuser in Shakespeare's drama.
>
> The outburst turns out to be true in more ways than the playwright could ever have imagined.
>
> Scientists have discovered that the hunchback king was infected with intestinal parasites, probably as a result of yucky mediaeval hygiene.
>
> The remains of Richard III, who ruled from 1483-1485, were founded beneath a car park last year in the central English city of Leicester.
>
> Since then, forensic scientists have been poring over the extraordinary find, seeking further details of the life and times of this controversial monarch.
>
> Sifting through the sediment, University of Cambridge researchers say they have found "multiple" microscopic eggs of a parasite in the lower region of the spine, where the royal innards would have been in life.
>
> "These results show that Richard was infected with roundworm in his intestines," they reported on Wednesday in The Lancet.
>
> "Roundworm is spread by the faecal contamination of food by dirty hands, or use of faeces as a crop fertiliser."
>
> The roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides, is a particularly unpleasant parasite that is common in parts of Africa and Latin America today.
>
> Eggs swallowed by humans hatch in the intestine, and burrow through the gut wall and migrate to the lungs through the blood system.
>
> They are then coughed up and swallowed again, entering the stomach and intestine for a second time, where they mature into adult worms some as long as 35 centimetres (14 inches), "swimming" against the flow of liquids and particles in the gut.
>
> An adult female can produce around 200,000 eggs a day, which are then passed on in faeces, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.
>
> In large infections, the worms can cause peritonitis, enlargement of the liver or spleen or intestinal blockage.
>
> A lively panoply of intestinal parasites roamed England in the 15th century.
>
> They included whipworm, liver fluke, beef tapeworm, pork tapeworm and fish tapeworm, which are transmitted through uncooked, or poorly cooked, infected meat.
>
> None of these was found in Richard's grave, though.
>
> "We would expect nobles of this period to have eaten meats such as beef, pork and fish regularly," says the probe, led by Piers Mitchell, a biological anthropologist
>
> "This finding might suggest that his food was cooked thoroughly, which would have prevented the transmission of these parasites."
>
> Vilified in Shakespeare's play -- unfairly say some -- as a murderous hunchback, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.
>
> He was buried without recorded ceremony in nearby Leicester.
>
> His death ended the "War of the Roses," the civil war between the families of Lancaster and York named after their respective heraldic symbols of the red and the white rose.
>
> --- In , Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@> wrote:
> >
> > Re: recent research on R3 remains….A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal worms….common among people of that time….I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D
> >
>

Ew, I could have done without knowing that. As if he didn't already have enough to contend with. No noodles for me tonight. =^..^=

From: maroonnavywhite
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: worms...


Here's the AFP article on the subject -- though I rather doubt its conclusions:

"Thy broken faith hath made the prey for worms," evil Richard III is told by an accuser in Shakespeare's drama.

The outburst turns out to be true in more ways than the playwright could ever have imagined.

Scientists have discovered that the hunchback king was infected with intestinal parasites, probably as a result of yucky mediaeval hygiene.

The remains of Richard III, who ruled from 1483-1485, were founded beneath a car park last year in the central English city of Leicester.

Since then, forensic scientists have been poring over the extraordinary find, seeking further details of the life and times of this controversial monarch.

Sifting through the sediment, University of Cambridge researchers say they have found "multiple" microscopic eggs of a parasite in the lower region of the spine, where the royal innards would have been in life.

"These results show that Richard was infected with roundworm in his intestines," they reported on Wednesday in The Lancet.

"Roundworm is spread by the faecal contamination of food by dirty hands, or use of faeces as a crop fertiliser."

The roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides, is a particularly unpleasant parasite that is common in parts of Africa and Latin America today.

Eggs swallowed by humans hatch in the intestine, and burrow through the gut wall and migrate to the lungs through the blood system.

They are then coughed up and swallowed again, entering the stomach and intestine for a second time, where they mature into adult worms some as long as 35 centimetres (14 inches), "swimming" against the flow of liquids and particles in the gut.

An adult female can produce around 200,000 eggs a day, which are then passed on in faeces, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

In large infections, the worms can cause peritonitis, enlargement of the liver or spleen or intestinal blockage.

A lively panoply of intestinal parasites roamed England in the 15th century.

They included whipworm, liver fluke, beef tapeworm, pork tapeworm and fish tapeworm, which are transmitted through uncooked, or poorly cooked, infected meat.

None of these was found in Richard's grave, though.

"We would expect nobles of this period to have eaten meats such as beef, pork and fish regularly," says the probe, led by Piers Mitchell, a biological anthropologist

"This finding might suggest that his food was cooked thoroughly, which would have prevented the transmission of these parasites."

Vilified in Shakespeare's play -- unfairly say some -- as a murderous hunchback, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

He was buried without recorded ceremony in nearby Leicester.

His death ended the "War of the Roses," the civil war between the families of Lancaster and York named after their respective heraldic symbols of the red and the white rose.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: recent research on R3 remains….A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal worms….common among people of that time….I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D
>

Hi,

Sorry to be a pain, but do you know where your friend's information was coming from? There is nothing about worms in the official report of the Leicester team, published in 'Antiquity' earlier this year, and since only bones were exhumed I don't quite understand how they would be able to tell whether he had worms, but I'm not an archaeologist so I may be wrong.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Ew, I could have done without knowing that. As if he didn’t already have enough to contend with. No noodles for me tonight. =^..^=

From: maroonnavywhite
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: worms...


Here's the AFP article on the subject -- though I rather doubt its conclusions:

"Thy broken faith hath made the prey for worms," evil Richard III is told by an accuser in Shakespeare's drama.

The outburst turns out to be true in more ways than the playwright could ever have imagined.

Scientists have discovered that the hunchback king was infected with intestinal parasites, probably as a result of yucky mediaeval hygiene.

The remains of Richard III, who ruled from 1483-1485, were founded beneath a car park last year in the central English city of Leicester.

Since then, forensic scientists have been poring over the extraordinary find, seeking further details of the life and times of this controversial monarch.

Sifting through the sediment, University of Cambridge researchers say they have found "multiple" microscopic eggs of a parasite in the lower region of the spine, where the royal innards would have been in life.

"These results show that Richard was infected with roundworm in his intestines," they reported on Wednesday in The Lancet.

"Roundworm is spread by the faecal contamination of food by dirty hands, or use of faeces as a crop fertiliser."

The roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides, is a particularly unpleasant parasite that is common in parts of Africa and Latin America today.

Eggs swallowed by humans hatch in the intestine, and burrow through the gut wall and migrate to the lungs through the blood system.

They are then coughed up and swallowed again, entering the stomach and intestine for a second time, where they mature into adult worms some as long as 35 centimetres (14 inches), "swimming" against the flow of liquids and particles in the gut.

An adult female can produce around 200,000 eggs a day, which are then passed on in faeces, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

In large infections, the worms can cause peritonitis, enlargement of the liver or spleen or intestinal blockage.

A lively panoply of intestinal parasites roamed England in the 15th century.

They included whipworm, liver fluke, beef tapeworm, pork tapeworm and fish tapeworm, which are transmitted through uncooked, or poorly cooked, infected meat.

None of these was found in Richard's grave, though.

"We would expect nobles of this period to have eaten meats such as beef, pork and fish regularly," says the probe, led by Piers Mitchell, a biological anthropologist

"This finding might suggest that his food was cooked thoroughly, which would have prevented the transmission of these parasites."

Vilified in Shakespeare's play -- unfairly say some -- as a murderous hunchback, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

He was buried without recorded ceremony in nearby Leicester.

His death ended the "War of the Roses," the civil war between the families of Lancaster and York named after their respective heraldic symbols of the red and the white rose.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: recent research on R3 remainsÂ….A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal wormsÂ….common among people of that timeÂ….I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D
>

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?

I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

There's this --
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

A J

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:02 AM, mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
 

Hi,

Sorry to be a pain, but do you know where your friend's information was coming from? There is nothing about worms in the official report of the Leicester team, published in 'Antiquity' earlier this year, and since only bones were exhumed I don't quite understand how they would be able to tell whether he had worms, but I'm not an archaeologist so I may be wrong.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Ew, I could have done without knowing that. As if he didnâ¬"t already have enough to contend with. No noodles for me tonight. =^..^=

From: maroonnavywhite
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:45 AM
To:
Subject: Re: worms...


Here's the AFP article on the subject -- though I rather doubt its conclusions:

"Thy broken faith hath made the prey for worms," evil Richard III is told by an accuser in Shakespeare's drama.

The outburst turns out to be true in more ways than the playwright could ever have imagined.

Scientists have discovered that the hunchback king was infected with intestinal parasites, probably as a result of yucky mediaeval hygiene.

The remains of Richard III, who ruled from 1483-1485, were founded beneath a car park last year in the central English city of Leicester.

Since then, forensic scientists have been poring over the extraordinary find, seeking further details of the life and times of this controversial monarch.

Sifting through the sediment, University of Cambridge researchers say they have found "multiple" microscopic eggs of a parasite in the lower region of the spine, where the royal innards would have been in life.

"These results show that Richard was infected with roundworm in his intestines," they reported on Wednesday in The Lancet.

"Roundworm is spread by the faecal contamination of food by dirty hands, or use of faeces as a crop fertiliser."

The roundworm, Ascaris lumbricoides, is a particularly unpleasant parasite that is common in parts of Africa and Latin America today.

Eggs swallowed by humans hatch in the intestine, and burrow through the gut wall and migrate to the lungs through the blood system.

They are then coughed up and swallowed again, entering the stomach and intestine for a second time, where they mature into adult worms some as long as 35 centimetres (14 inches), "swimming" against the flow of liquids and particles in the gut.

An adult female can produce around 200,000 eggs a day, which are then passed on in faeces, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website.

In large infections, the worms can cause peritonitis, enlargement of the liver or spleen or intestinal blockage.

A lively panoply of intestinal parasites roamed England in the 15th century.

They included whipworm, liver fluke, beef tapeworm, pork tapeworm and fish tapeworm, which are transmitted through uncooked, or poorly cooked, infected meat.

None of these was found in Richard's grave, though.

"We would expect nobles of this period to have eaten meats such as beef, pork and fish regularly," says the probe, led by Piers Mitchell, a biological anthropologist

"This finding might suggest that his food was cooked thoroughly, which would have prevented the transmission of these parasites."

Vilified in Shakespeare's play -- unfairly say some -- as a murderous hunchback, Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth in 1485.

He was buried without recorded ceremony in nearby Leicester.

His death ended the "War of the Roses," the civil war between the families of Lancaster and York named after their respective heraldic symbols of the red and the white rose.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Carol Darling <cdarlingart1@...> wrote:
>
> Re: recent research on R3 remainsÂ&.A friend sent a note to me that Richards remains indicated he had a clear case of intestinal wormsÂ&.common among people of that timeÂ&.I guess due to poor hygiene. I am sure this will lead to a great deal of chat about how this might have affected everything about him. Carol D
>

This information comes from researchers from the University of Cambridge and Dr Appleby comments. Frankly as most of the population would have also had roundworm infestation...apparently...of what importance is this snippet of information. It's all a load of crap...and as I have said on here many a time...it's about time to get King Richard laid to rest. Id be surprised if there is anything left of him at this rate after this neverending poking around on his remains. He is dead... end of ...and we now know exactly how he died. Would anyone like to have the remains of one of their loved ones treated in this way. I don't think so. What a bloody disgrace.

Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig? I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

A forensic report on Agnes Sorel also claimed she had intestinal worms.
Mariaejbronte@...

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
 

Today's Times reports the story.  Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands.  It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs.  There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


  Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?  I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail. Marie 

--- In , <> wrote:

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

If you have visited a third world country lately, you too could have some unwanted parasites.

Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 4, 2013, at 8:58 AM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:

A forensic report on Agnes Sorel also claimed she had intestinal worms.
Maria ejbronte@...

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:


Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig? I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail. Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

Agree Eileen - I don't really see how this advances our knowledge.  It just reeks of people jumping on the bandwagon in the interests of furthering their own careers.  I find it makes a great deal of difference to me that we're dealing with an identified individual & that it's easier to deal with information gathered from a number of (hopefully representative) anonymous individuals when we invoke archaeology to learn about the past.  
Has anyone else watched the series from Dundee University from a few years ago featuring the work of Caroline Wilkinson?  I found them to deal respectfully with the remains in their care as well as transmitting their, sometimes distasteful, conclusions back to the communities involved.  And was particularly touched by Prof. Sue Black's actions with the remains of the little boy who had been turned into an anatomical specimen sometime in the 18th century.
A J

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:32 AM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
 

This information comes from researchers from the University of Cambridge and Dr Appleby comments. Frankly as most of the population would have also had roundworm infestation...apparently...of what importance is this snippet of information. It's all a load of crap...and as I have said on here many a time...it's about time to get King Richard laid to rest. Id be surprised if there is anything left of him at this rate after this neverending poking around on his remains. He is dead... end of ...and we now know exactly how he died. Would anyone like to have the remains of one of their loved ones treated in this way. I don't think so. What a bloody disgrace.

Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn't he going to be allowed any peace and dignity? I don't care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on with the external ones  optimatis serpentes  um, serpentes optimatis? I don't speak Latin beyond grammar school third year  aristocratic snakes is what I mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And I'm pretty damned sure he wouldn't want us to know either. Why can't they leave him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I'm ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And remember him ever after for the good king he was. Sandra From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: worms...

Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition..... From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig? I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail. Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

Yes AJ..I did watch that series and I remember well that poor little boy.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>. And
> was particularly touched by Prof. Sue Black's actions with the remains of
> the little boy who had been turned into an anatomical specimen sometime in
> the 18th century.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:32 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This information comes from researchers from the University of Cambridge
> > and Dr Appleby comments. Frankly as most of the population would have also
> > had roundworm infestation...apparently...of what importance is this snippet
> > of information. It's all a load of crap...and as I have said on here many a
> > time...it's about time to get King Richard laid to rest. Id be surprised if
> > there is anything left of him at this rate after this neverending poking
> > around on his remains. He is dead... end of ...and we now know exactly how
> > he died. Would anyone like to have the remains of one of their loved ones
> > treated in this way. I don't think so. What a bloody disgrace.
> >
> >
> >
>

You saying exactly what I am feeling Sandra. I didn't suspect at the beginning his bones were going to be picked over so thoroughly. Im surprised the Royal Family/Duke of Gloucester hasn't stepped in to demand a halt. After all they are allowed a high level of secrecy/privacy. It's beginning to really annoy me now. Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn’t he going to be allowed any peace and dignity? I don’t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on with the external ones â€" optimatis serpentes â€" um, serpentes optimatis? I don’t speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â€" aristocratic snakes is what I mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And I’m pretty damned sure he wouldn’t want us to know either. Why can’t they leave him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I’m ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
>
>
> Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
>
>
> There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
> Marie
>
>
> --- In , <> wrote:
>
>
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
>

Let's refer to roundworm presence as trichonosis because that's more dignified.
I remember my mother telling me off for sampling raw pastry when I was very small & nosy & telling me I would get worms. She didn't say what sort. This is anecdotal evidence for intestinal worms being a known problem in the post-WW2 years.
Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 4 Sep 2013, at 16:26, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Yes AJ..I did watch that series and I remember well that poor little boy.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>. And
> was particularly touched by Prof. Sue Black's actions with the remains of
> the little boy who had been turned into an anatomical specimen sometime in
> the 18th century.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:32 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This information comes from researchers from the University of Cambridge
> > and Dr Appleby comments. Frankly as most of the population would have also
> > had roundworm infestation...apparently...of what importance is this snippet
> > of information. It's all a load of crap...and as I have said on here many a
> > time...it's about time to get King Richard laid to rest. Id be surprised if
> > there is anything left of him at this rate after this neverending poking
> > around on his remains. He is dead... end of ...and we now know exactly how
> > he died. Would anyone like to have the remains of one of their loved ones
> > treated in this way. I don't think so. What a bloody disgrace.
> >
> >
> >
>

I remember Domestic Science lessons at which it was impressed upon us that of all meats, pork had to be most thoroughly cooked. Then we were told the life cycle of all sorts of horrible parasites. Tape worm freaked me the most. It became more a Biology lessons, Put me off pork for a long time, but I struggled manfully with my problem. Roast pork is probably my favourite Sunday lunch'. But maybe not this coming weekend, eh. =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 4:33 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: worms...

Let's refer to roundworm presence as trichonosis because that's more dignified. I remember my mother telling me off for sampling raw pastry when I was very small & nosy & telling me I would get worms. She didn't say what sort. This is anecdotal evidence for intestinal worms being a known problem in the post-WW2 years. Jan.

Sent from my iPad
On 4 Sep 2013, at 16:26, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Yes AJ..I did watch that series and I remember well that poor little boy.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>. And
> was particularly touched by Prof. Sue Black's actions with the remains of
> the little boy who had been turned into an anatomical specimen sometime in
> the 18th century.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:32 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > This information comes from researchers from the University of Cambridge
> > and Dr Appleby comments. Frankly as most of the population would have also
> > had roundworm infestation...apparently...of what importance is this snippet
> > of information. It's all a load of crap...and as I have said on here many a
> > time...it's about time to get King Richard laid to rest. Id be surprised if
> > there is anything left of him at this rate after this neverending poking
> > around on his remains. He is dead... end of ...and we now know exactly how
> > he died. Would anyone like to have the remains of one of their loved ones
> > treated in this way. I don't think so. What a bloody disgrace.
> >
> >
> >
>

And again, the vast majority of people with this condition would have been totally asymtomatic -- it would have gone away on its own in a few days/weeks and perhaps reoccurred on its own. I'd recommend eating lots of garlic!

Tamara (who wonders if Richard picked it up during the campaign)

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Today's Times reports the story.  Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands.  It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
>
> There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs.  There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
>  I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
> Marie 
>
>
> --- In , <> wrote:
>
>
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
>

Of course. Its all rather unnecessary. I do believe Richard would be swivelling in his grave....if he had one...Eileen

--- In , "maroonnavywhite" <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> And again, the vast majority of people with this condition would have been totally asymtomatic -- it would have gone away on its own in a few days/weeks and perhaps reoccurred on its own. I'd recommend eating lots of garlic!
>
> Tamara (who wonders if Richard picked it up during the campaign)
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > Today's Times reports the story.  Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands.  It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
> >
> > There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs.  There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> >  I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
> > Marie 
> >
> >
> > --- In , <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
> >
>

...or laughing at our squeamishness. Since the bad hygiene was pretty
much across the board back then, he might just shrug, grin and tell us
anybody who was anybody had them. And to be thankful we've learned how
to wash our hands.

On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, EILEEN BATES
<eileenbates147@...> wrote:
>
>
> Of course. Its all rather unnecessary. I do believe Richard would be
> swivelling in his grave....if he had one...Eileen
>
> --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> <khafara@...> wrote:
>>
>> And again, the vast majority of people with this condition would have been
>> totally asymtomatic -- it would have gone away on its own in a few
>> days/weeks and perhaps reoccurred on its own. I'd recommend eating lots of
>> garlic!
>>
>> Tamara (who wonders if Richard picked it up during the campaign)
>>
>> --- In , Pamela Furmidge
>> <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Today's Times reports the story. Â Their article makes the point that it
>> > was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection
>> > came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed
>> > his or her hands. Â It seems most of the population at the time would have
>> > been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
>> > worms.
>> >
>> > There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or
>> > elements of it) reached the lungs. Â There was a medieval treatment for the
>> > problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
>> >
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Â
>> > Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined
>> > the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the
>> > skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
>> > Â I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think
>> > almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation.
>> > But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
>> > MarieÂ
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In ,
>> > <> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
>> > eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
>> >
>>
>
>



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

Now that I like...Seriously though...I think the nobility were quite clean. One castle I visited recently...and I think it's Kenilworth...I was surprised at the number of little stone wash basins dotted in the walls. And I remember reading...where.. ...that Fat Henry was very very fussy about the cleanliness of the servants etc., that were around his little son.
Of course I suppose one never knew about the conditions in the kitchens or how fresh the meat was etc., Eileen
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> ...or laughing at our squeamishness. Since the bad hygiene was pretty
> much across the board back then, he might just shrug, grin and tell us
> anybody who was anybody had them. And to be thankful we've learned how
> to wash our hands.
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of course. Its all rather unnecessary. I do believe Richard would be
> > swivelling in his grave....if he had one...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> >>
> >> And again, the vast majority of people with this condition would have been
> >> totally asymtomatic -- it would have gone away on its own in a few
> >> days/weeks and perhaps reoccurred on its own. I'd recommend eating lots of
> >> garlic!
> >>
> >> Tamara (who wonders if Richard picked it up during the campaign)
> >>
> >> --- In , Pamela Furmidge
> >> <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Today's Times reports the story. Â Their article makes the point that it
> >> > was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection
> >> > came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed
> >> > his or her hands. Â It seems most of the population at the time would have
> >> > been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> >> > worms.
> >> >
> >> > There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or
> >> > elements of it) reached the lungs. Â There was a medieval treatment for the
> >> > problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> > Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined
> >> > the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the
> >> > skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> >> > Â I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think
> >> > almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation.
> >> > But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
> >> > MarieÂ
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In ,
> >> > <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> >> > eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

Ah, Eileen, we know the cause of Richard's digestive tract problem  Morton's strawberries! If anyone had dirty hands, it was Mucky Morton. And he could personally supply enough sh-1-t for a very fertile patch. =^..^= From: EILEEN BATES Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 5:51 PM To: Subject: Re: worms...

Now that I like...Seriously though...I think the nobility were quite clean. One castle I visited recently...and I think it's Kenilworth...I was surprised at the number of little stone wash basins dotted in the walls. And I remember reading...where.. ...that Fat Henry was very very fussy about the cleanliness of the servants etc., that were around his little son.
Of course I suppose one never knew about the conditions in the kitchens or how fresh the meat was etc., Eileen
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> ...or laughing at our squeamishness. Since the bad hygiene was pretty
> much across the board back then, he might just shrug, grin and tell us
> anybody who was anybody had them. And to be thankful we've learned how
> to wash our hands.
>
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, EILEEN BATES
> <eileenbates147@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Of course. Its all rather unnecessary. I do believe Richard would be
> > swivelling in his grave....if he had one...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "maroonnavywhite"
> > <khafara@> wrote:
> >>
> >> And again, the vast majority of people with this condition would have been
> >> totally asymtomatic -- it would have gone away on its own in a few
> >> days/weeks and perhaps reoccurred on its own. I'd recommend eating lots of
> >> garlic!
> >>
> >> Tamara (who wonders if Richard picked it up during the campaign)
> >>
> >> --- In , Pamela Furmidge
> >> <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Today's Times reports the story. Â Their article makes the point that it
> >> > was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection
> >> > came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed
> >> > his or her hands. Â It seems most of the population at the time would have
> >> > been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> >> > worms.
> >> >
> >> > There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or
> >> > elements of it) reached the lungs. Â There was a medieval treatment for the
> >> > problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition.....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Â
> >> > Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined
> >> > the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the
> >> > skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> >> > Â I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think
> >> > almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation.
> >> > But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail.
> >> > MarieÂ
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In ,
> >> > <> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> >> > eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Friend: Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> Me: I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

Could not agree more Sandra!!! Alison
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
Subject: Re: Re: worms...
Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn't he going to be allowed any peace and dignity? I don't care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on with the external ones  optimatis serpentes  um, serpentes optimatis? I don't speak Latin beyond grammar school third year  aristocratic snakes is what I mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And I'm pretty damned sure he wouldn't want us to know either. Why can't they leave him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I'm ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And remember him ever after for the good king he was. Sandra From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: worms... Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has worms.
There were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it) reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the patient was aware of having the condition..... From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:

Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig? I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost everybody had some. They reckon Agnes Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the Daily Mail. Marie --- In , <> wrote: According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic bones....Eileen

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
>  
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
>  
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn’t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I don’t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â€" optimatis serpentes â€" um, serpentes optimatis? I don’t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â€" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> I’m pretty damned sure he wouldn’t want us to know either. Why can’t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I’m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
>  
> Today's Times reports the story.  Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.  It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.  There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

Richard was clean out of luck. Poor man. I'm sure all he wanted was to stay in the north, do his thing there, and die there in the full course of time. But what did he get? Enough strife to demolish a lesser spirit, health problems with his back, bereavement on a huge scale, two-faced bastards on all sides....and bloody worms! It was unrelenting, but still he died like a true king. You can't help but admire him for never giving up on what he believed to be true. Maybe it was already becoming an old-fashioned creed, with the likes of Henry Tudor slithering in from the wings, but he stuck to it and did not waver. He was amazing. Sandra =^..^= From: ellrosa1452 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 8:14 PM To: Subject: Re: worms...

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine

--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> Â
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: worms...
>
> Â
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn’t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I don’t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â€" optimatis serpentes â€" um, serpentes optimatis? I don’t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â€" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> I’m pretty damned sure he wouldn’t want us to know either. Why can’t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I’m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re:
> worms...
>
> Â
> Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Â
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

Amen to that!
On Sep 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Richard was clean out of luck. Poor man. I'm sure all he wanted was to stay in the north, do his thing there, and die there in the full course of time. But what did he get? Enough strife to demolish a lesser spirit, health problems with his back, bereavement on a huge scale, two-faced bastards on all sides....and bloody worms! It was unrelenting, but still he died like a true king. You can't help but admire him for never giving up on what he believed to be true. Maybe it was already becoming an old-fashioned creed, with the likes of Henry Tudor slithering in from the wings, but he stuck to it and did not waver. He was amazing. Sandra =^..^= From: ellrosa1452 Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 8:14 PM To: Subject: Re: worms...

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine

--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> Â
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> Â
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> Â
> Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Â
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÂÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÂÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn’t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I don’t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â€" optimatis serpentes â€" um, serpentes optimatis? I don’t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â€" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> I’m pretty damned sure he wouldn’t want us to know either. Why can’t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I’m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÂÂ
> Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÂÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

Elaine wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Carol adds:

And note that one of the authors is a certain JA. I'll say no more.

Carol

Sandra wrote:

Richard was clean out of luck. Poor man. I'm sure all he wanted was to stay in the north, do his thing there, and die there in the full course of time. But what did he get? Enough strife to demolish a lesser spirit, health problems with his back, bereavement on a huge scale, two-faced bastards on all sides....and bloody worms! It was unrelenting, but still he died like a true king. You can't help but admire him for never giving up on what he believed to be true. Maybe it was already becoming an old-fashioned creed, with the likes of Henry Tudor slithering in from the wings, but he stuck to it and did not waver. He was amazing.

Carol responds:

Agreed on all counts, but I personally think that the worms are no big deal. If Richard had them, then so did everyone who shared his table--and probably a lot more people than that. It's no reflection on his hygiene, only that, possibly, of his cook. I suspect that most people of the time had one form of parasite or another, yet some lived well into their eighties. And at least the article makes clear that he had only one of several possible varieties! (Let's hope that this new detail doesn't appear in all the new biographies! Henry and Edward IV probably had them, too--but we'll never know because their bones weren't found under a parking lot as the archaeological find of the year--or the century--and the means to bolster at least one budding career.

Carol

I so agree. In fact, it has only been in the modern era, and in "civilized" nations, where hygiene has all but eradicated intestinal pests. In USA kids are so sterilized by soap, hand sanitizers, insulation from dirty old playgrounds, and verboten to play in the mud, that old diseases are mutating and coming back, like measles, mumps, whopping cough. And from people who enter the county, tuberculosis, leprosy and other ancient scourges. The wife of a man I work with, went to Brazil on a visit to the Amazon and came back with an amoeba like infection which took five years to wear itself out. And the Tudors had way more than intestinal pests, they were walking and talking pests!
On Sep 7, 2013, at 12:56 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Sandra wrote:

Richard was clean out of luck. Poor man. I'm sure all he wanted was to stay in the north, do his thing there, and die there in the full course of time. But what did he get? Enough strife to demolish a lesser spirit, health problems with his back, bereavement on a huge scale, two-faced bastards on all sides....and bloody worms! It was unrelenting, but still he died like a true king. You can't help but admire him for never giving up on what he believed to be true. Maybe it was already becoming an old-fashioned creed, with the likes of Henry Tudor slithering in from the wings, but he stuck to it and did not waver. He was amazing.

Carol responds:

Agreed on all counts, but I personally think that the worms are no big deal. If Richard had them, then so did everyone who shared his table--and probably a lot more people than that. It's no reflection on his hygiene, only that, possibly, of his cook. I suspect that most people of the time had one form of parasite or another, yet some lived well into their eighties. And at least the article makes clear that he had only one of several possible varieties! (Let's hope that this new detail doesn't appear in all the new biographies! Henry and Edward IV probably had them, too--but we'll never know because their bones weren't found under a parking lot as the archaeological find of the year--or the century--and the means to bolster at least one budding career.

Carol

Interestingly, if you look at the locations the soil samples were taken, you can see that, except for the ones taken in the sacral region of the remains, the other two were taken in a different layer (the soil appears lighter than the grave in the picture) and up near the shoulders. The significance of that is that, as they never let us forget, his feet were "lost" (or not looked for) because of a "Victorian outhouse". Why were no samples taken by Dr. Oops down near the missing feet?
From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: Re: worms...


Elaine wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Carol adds:

And note that one of the authors is a certain JA. I'll say no more.

Carol

I also note that they looked by his head and found no signs of roundworm there, meaning he had a typically mild and probably temporary case; most infestations go away after a few weeks. Give him a few servings of chicken vindaloo or anything with lots of garlic in it and it probably would have cleared out right quick.

It also seems that no other of the myriad kinds of food-infesting critters were found, which would mean that on the whole he was in good shape in that regard -- for a medieval person anyway.

Tamara



--- In , Wolfand Boar <wolfandboarfics@...> wrote:
>
> Interestingly, if you look at the locations the soil samples were taken, you can see that, except for the ones taken in the sacral region of the remains, the other two were taken in a different layer (the soil appears lighter than the grave in the picture) and up near the shoulders. The significance of that is that, as they never let us forget, his feet were "lost" (or not looked for) because of a "Victorian outhouse". Why were no samples taken by Dr. Oops down near the missing feet? 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2013 1:39 PM
> Subject: RE: Re: worms...
>
>
>
>  
>  
>
> Elaine wrote:
>
>
> Marie
>
> You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext
>
> Carol adds:
>
> And note that one of the authors is a certain JA. I'll say no more.
>
> Carol
>

Just dropping in having noticed this.
This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
Paul


On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÂÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÂÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isn’t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I don’t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â€" optimatis serpentes â€" um, serpentes optimatis? I don’t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â€" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> I’m pretty damned sure he wouldn’t want us to know either. Why can’t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. I’m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÂÂ
> Today's Times reports the story. Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands. It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs. There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÂÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Touché Paul.......or Waking the Dead!!!!
On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:06 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

Just dropping in having noticed this.
This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
Paul


On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÃÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÃÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬Â"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬Â"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬Â"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬Â"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬Â"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬Â"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬Â"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÃÂ
> Today's Times reports the story.ÃÂ Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.ÃÂ It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.ÃÂ There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÃÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

The Victorian privy might have had something to do with it? Depends where they buried the...er, excrement. Right on top of poor Richard, where they'd planted the rhubarb? Or can the parasites be definitely dated to around 1485? =^..^= From: Pamela Bain Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:51 AM To: mailto: Subject: Re: Re: worms...

Touché Paul.......or Waking the Dead!!!!
On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:06 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

Just dropping in having noticed this.
This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
Paul


On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , mailto: wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels mailto:alisonshiels@... wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÃÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin mailto:sandramachin@...
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÃÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬Â"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬Â"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬Â"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬Â"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬Â"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬Â"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬Â"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÃÂ
> Today's Times reports the story.ÃÂ Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.ÃÂ It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.ÃÂ There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÃÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Marie responds:

That is why they took samples from different spots:

1) near the pelvis, where any parasite eggs that had been in Richard's digestive tract would have been;

2) near the skull; and

3) from outside the grave cut, but parallel to where the pelvis lay.

Numbers 2 and 3 were control samples, ie from places where any eggs Richard carried would not have been dropped. Therefore if all three samples were equally positive then the eggs were clearly background noise, ie the whole area was contaminated with them and they had nothing to do with Richard's remains. If, on the other hand, there were parasites present only in sample 1, from the area where Richard's pelvis lay, then it would be fair to conclude that they belonged to him.

The results were:

Sample 1) 'multiple roundworm eggs'

Sample 2) No parasites at all

Sample 3) 'scanty environmental soil contamination with parasite eggs'.

It was on this basis that they concluded that Richard had roundworms.

I do take the point that someone else made earlier on this forum, ie that since the foot of the grave had been cut into to built a Victorian 'outhouse' it would have been sensible to take a third sample from the 'foot' end of the grave cut.

Sorry if this grosses people out or seems offensive, but this is all the inevitable result of finding Richard's remains. Having had to dose for threadworms on more than one occasion back when the kids were young, I can certainly confirm that you don't have to live in dirty surroundings to pick these things up. It's hand-to-hand contact (and little girls are very tactile with each other, and they bite their nails and suck their fingers so keep reinfecting themselves). Parasite infection in Richard's day would have been normal - we know the lovely Agnes Sorel was riddled.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Just dropping in having noticed this.
This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
Paul


On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÃÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÃÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬Â"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬Â"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬Â"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬Â"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬Â"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬Â"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬Â"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÃÂ
> Today's Times reports the story.ÃÂ Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.ÃÂ It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.ÃÂ There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÃÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Oh, dear, I seem to have commented on something that has already been commented upon. Sorry. My forum mails are still every which way. =^..^= From: SandraMachin Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 12:10 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: worms... The Victorian privy might have had something to do with it? Depends where they buried the...er, excrement. Right on top of poor Richard, where they'd planted the rhubarb? Or can the parasites be definitely dated to around 1485? =^..^= From: Pamela Bain Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 11:51 AM To: mailto: Subject: Re: Re: worms...

Touché Paul.......or Waking the Dead!!!!
On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:06 AM, "Paul Trevor Bale" <paul.bale@...> wrote:

Just dropping in having noticed this.
This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
Paul


On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time.

Another article for the Papers Library.

Marie

--- In , mailto: wrote:

Marie

You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61757-2/fulltext

Elaine






--- In , Alison Shiels mailto:alisonshiels@... wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÃÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin mailto:sandramachin@...
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÃÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬Â"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬Â"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬Â"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬Â"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬Â"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬Â"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬Â"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÃÂ
> Today's Times reports the story.ÃÂ Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.ÃÂ It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.ÃÂ There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÃÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

In the Times' Letters to the Editor I found today a missive from Abigail Watson of Longthorpe, Cambs. The writer praises the Times for the fascinating report about the king's intestinal parasites, repeating the symptoms, and wondering on paper if the symptoms might have been attributed to witchcraft. She quotes Polydore Vergil quoting Richard's outburst: for the space of a few days past nether night nor day can I rest, drynk, nor eat, wherefor my blood by little and little decreaseth, my force faileth, my breath shorteneth & She refers to PV, though not by name, as a chronicler who could not have been present but may have spoken to persons who were, and then flatters the Times a bit more by saying that reports could easily morph into legend before the days of eminent newspapers. She even wonders if attendants examining his stools could have been the source of some of Shakespeare's fabrication. That last word is my choice. I assume the outburst is part of the tale of the Council meeting of June 13th.according to PV which I haven't yet read. Or have I remembered others referring to More instead? I haven't read him either. Jan.
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 9 September 2013, 12:26
Subject: RE: Re: Re: worms...
Marie responds: That is why they took samples from different spots:1) near the pelvis, where any parasite eggs that had been in Richard's digestive tract would have been;2) near the skull; and3) from outside the grave cut, but parallel to where the pelvis lay.Numbers 2 and 3 were control samples, ie from places where any eggs Richard carried would not have been dropped. Therefore if all three samples were equally positive then the eggs were clearly background noise, ie the whole area was contaminated with them and they had nothing to do with Richard's remains. If, on the other hand, there were parasites present only in sample 1, from the area where Richard's pelvis lay, then it would be fair to conclude that they belonged to him.The results were:Sample 1) 'multiple roundworm eggs'Sample 2) No parasites at allSample 3) 'scanty environmental soil contamination with parasite eggs'.It was on this basis that they concluded that Richard had roundworms. I do take the point that someone else made earlier on this forum, ie that since the foot of the grave had been cut into to built a Victorian 'outhouse' it would have been sensible to take a third sample from the 'foot' end of the grave cut.Sorry if this grosses people out or seems offensive, but this is all the inevitable result of finding Richard's remains. Having had to dose for threadworms on more than one occasion back when the kids were young, I can certainly confirm that you don't have to live in dirty surroundings to pick these things up. It's hand-to-hand contact (and little girls are very tactile with each other, and they bite their nails and suck their fingers so keep reinfecting themselves). Parasite infection in Richard's day would have been normal - we know the lovely Agnes Sorel was riddled. Marie --- In , <> wrote: Just dropping in having noticed this. This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me! They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird. Has nobody else seen CSI!!!? Paul On 06/09/2013 22:10, mariewalsh2003 wrote: Oh, thanks very much for that. Seems he had worms, like a lot of people. God, even today threadworms and nits go round primary schools the whole time. Another article for the Papers Library. Marie --- In , <> wrote: Marie You wanted something more reliable than The Daily Mail. The article is in The Lancet and appears to be research done by the University of Leicester. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813)61757-2/fulltext Elaine --- In , Alison Shiels <alisonshiels@...> wrote:
>
> Could not agree more Sandra!!!
> ÃÂ
> Alison
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 September 2013, 15:10
> Subject: Re: Re: worms...
>
> ÃÂ
>
> Oh, I feel so angry on his behalf. Isnâ¬Â"t he going to be allowed any peace
> and dignity? I donâ¬Â"t care if he had internal parasites. He had enough going on
> with the external ones â¬" optimatis serpentes â¬" um, serpentes optimatis? I donâ¬Â"t
> speak Latin beyond grammar school third year â¬" aristocratic snakes is what I
> mean. Nor do I wish to know any other facet of his many health difficulties. And
> Iâ¬Â"m pretty damned sure he wouldnâ¬Â"t want us to know either. Why canâ¬Â"t they leave
> him alone? After the euphoria of his discovery, all I really wanted to know was
> what he looked like in life, but he was invaded enough finding that out. Iâ¬Â"m
> ashamed of wanting to know how he actually appeared. As if it makes any
> difference to our opinion of him! And now that we know, and are delighted to
> discover he was so personable, the rest is his business and his alone. Leave him
> alone, bury him with dignity and all honour, and then just be proud of him. And
> remember him ever after for the good king he was.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 2:41 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re:
> worms...
>
> ÃÂ
> Today's Times reports the story.ÃÂ Their article makes the point
> that it was nothing to do with Richard's own hygiene, but more likely the
> infection came from someone in the royal kitchens preparing food, who hadn't
> washed his or her hands.ÃÂ It seems most of the population at the time would
> have been infected and even today, around 25% of the world's population has
> worms.
>
> There
> were also no symptoms, apart from a cough if the infestation (or elements of it)
> reached the lungs.ÃÂ There was a medieval treatment for the problem, if the
> patient was aware of having the condition.....
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ÃÂ
> Well, why wasn't that in the report? Have they gone back and examined the
> soil since? Are we sure this doesn't really relate to one of the skeletons that
> have been exhumed in the current Greyfriars dig?
> I wouldn't be surprised if Richard did have worms - I would think almost
> everybody had some. They reckon Agnes
> Sorel had a bad infestation. But I'd still like a more reliable source than the
> Daily Mail.
> Marie
> --- In
> ,
> <> wrote:
> According to an article in the Daily Mail...I know, I know...round worm
> eggs were found in the soil around the pelvic
> bones....Eileen
> --
Richard Liveth Yet!

Today, you can pick up roundworms though simply petting an infected
puppy and touching your mouth afterward. It's not uncommon for a puppy
to be infected.

Richard lived in a time when these sorts of things were common. The
ick factor might squick us, but it's not a personal failing if he had
them. Given the unsanitary conditions, it would be a miracle if he
didn't have them. And it can always be worse: they could have found
evidence of other...um...infections.

Hey, Paul, you might even have had them yerself when you followed him
down that hill. :)

If it's nonsense as written in The Lancet, I think the researchers
will be castigated by their peers for their sloppy work. Maybe we
should brace for additional papers in the coming months that rip away
the king's privacy and make cringe.

I'm glad what made him...him...is well out of their reach.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

>
> Just dropping in having noticed this.
> This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
> They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
> Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
> Paul

--

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

The grandson of a friend of mine had worms recently. The whole family including grandma had to be treated. This is a nice, well to do family,now.

We are lucky that there is a treatment.

In Richard's day one just had to live with these things, and very unpleasant it must have been.

--- In , <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Today, you can pick up roundworms though simply petting an infected
puppy and touching your mouth afterward. It's not uncommon for a puppy
to be infected.

Richard lived in a time when these sorts of things were common. The
ick factor might squick us, but it's not a personal failing if he had
them. Given the unsanitary conditions, it would be a miracle if he
didn't have them. And it can always be worse: they could have found
evidence of other...um...infections.

Hey, Paul, you might even have had them yerself when you followed him
down that hill. :)

If it's nonsense as written in The Lancet, I think the researchers
will be castigated by their peers for their sloppy work. Maybe we
should brace for additional papers in the coming months that rip away
the king's privacy and make cringe.

I'm glad what made him...him...is well out of their reach.

~Weds



On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 3:06 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:

>
> Just dropping in having noticed this.
> This worms story appears to be total nonsense to me!
> They need internal remains to know what was going on in a persons digestive tract, otherwise any old creature burrowing through the earth could have left "evidence" of something weird.
> Has nobody else seen CSI!!!?
> Paul

--

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