Reliable reading on Richard III

As a recent Ricardian convert, what books /authors would members here recommend as giving a balanced view of Richard?

I am currently reading Richard III The Maligned King by Annette Carson, and have just finished Anne Neville Richard III's Tragic Queen by Amy Licence, and John Ashdown-Hill's, The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA.

Am I doing OK so far, and If so, what else could you all suggest?

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

For heavyweight historians try Charles Ross "Richard III" Yale English Monarchs series & Rosemary Horrox's "Richard III - a study in service". David Baldwin also wrote a more manageably sized volume. The first 2 support the view that the king probably had his nephews killed. Baldwin sits on the fence Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 12 Sep 2013, at 10:27, "EILEEN BATES" <eileenbates147@...> wrote:

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

Thank you so much for these suggestions. I have today ordered Royal Blood, and the David Baldwin biography. I intend to work my way through your excellent recommendations. I have studied history, but mostly social history of the Industrial Revolution, and this period is quite novel to me.

I hope to read, and hopefully to understand, much more about the fascinating character that was King Richard III, and his life and times,, both here and in literature.

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

Thank you so much for these suggestions. I have today ordered Royal Blood, and the David Baldwin biography. I intend to work my way through your excellent recommendations. I have studied history, but mostly social history of the Industrial Revolution, and this period is quite novel to me.

I hope to read, and hopefully to understand, much more about the fascinating character that was King Richard III, and his life and times,, both here and in literature. 

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

While it is necessary, I suppose, to read something that provides a reliable basic biography of Richard III, the problem is that some authors come to the subject with their ideas already formed with respect to his character, Ross being a good example. If you can read through the gratuitous editorializing, Ross may be worth it. As another option, you might want to consider Paul Murray Kendall's Richard the Third. His work suffers from something of the opposite problem, & I find I'm no longer convinced by his characterization of Richard as a proto-Puritan with a guilty conscience. I haven't read Baldwin yet, so can't say if he's a happy compromise.
For someone who already has a grasp of the basic bones of contention, I agree that it's hard to beat Annette Carson's Maligned King.
A J

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, <janjovian@...> wrote:

Thank you so much for these suggestions. I have today ordered Royal Blood, and the David Baldwin biography. I intend to work my way through your excellent recommendations. I have studied history, but mostly social history of the Industrial Revolution, and this period is quite novel to me.

I hope to read, and hopefully to understand, much more about the fascinating character that was King Richard III, and his life and times,, both here and in literature.

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

I agree AJ, Annette Carson's "Maligned King " would be hard to beat. Paul Murray Kendal is good but probably dated however still worth a read. All of John Ashcroft Hills books are excellent. If someone needs to get their head around the WOTR starting with Edward and Richard you couldn't do better than Sharon K Penman's "Sunne in Splendour" It is historical fiction but has been meticulously researched and is infinitely better than some of the offerings of so called "historians". Peter Hammond's book on The Battle of Tewkesbury is also excellent.

Thank you so much for these suggestions. I have today ordered Royal Blood, and the David Baldwin biography. I intend to work my way through your excellent recommendations. I have studied history, but mostly social history of the Industrial Revolution, and this period is quite novel to me.

I hope to read, and hopefully to understand, much more about the fascinating character that was King Richard III, and his life and times,, both here and in literature.

Would highly recommend
Royal Blood by Bertram Fields
Betrayal of Richard lll V Lamb
Good King Richard? Jeremy Potter

Eileen

janjovian wrote:

As a recent Ricardian convert, what books /authors would members here recommend as giving a balanced view of Richard?

I am currently reading Richard III The Maligned King by Annette Carson, and have just finished Anne Neville Richard III's Tragic Queen by Amy Licence, and John Ashdown-Hill's, The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA.

Am I doing OK so far, and If so, what else could you all suggest?

Carol responds:

Welcome to the ranks of Ricardian converts! I haven't read Amy License, but from what I've heard, she's neither accurate nor balanced. Otherwise, you're off to an excellent start with Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill. I would recommend adding Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard to that list. It's out of date in some respects (many documents have surfaced since it was written), but it's highly readable and generally favorable toward Richard. Charles Ross's biography (now considered the standard) attempts to be objective but is influenced by the traditionalist perspective. We have a few interesting articles in our Files that you may find useful. Source books like Hammond and Sutton's "Road to Bosworth" are useful if you concentrate on the primary documents rather than the commentary (or the biased excerpts from Croyland and Mancini). Probably the most useful sources are the ones I don't have access to right now, the Harleian manuscripts and York Civic Records.

Carol

Jan wrote:

Sorry - that should read 'as 'the worst of...'and not 'and'! From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 14 September 2013, 9:12
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard III doubts
I get The Times but it hasn't been delivered yet. There was a letter earlier in the week which said: "Sir, Oliver Kamm (Sept 10) is right to describe Richard III and 'the worst of English monarchs.' but he may be too hasty to argue for Richard's alleged remains to be buried in Leicester Cathedral. The crucial DNA evidence for example, has still not been subject to proper peer-reviewed analysis. We must be 100 per cent certain that the bones really are Richard's before we bury them with all the veneration that the Church can muster. Dr Bendor Grosvenor, Direction, ArtHistory News.com."
I assume that today's letter which I have not seen relates to the earlier one. From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

 Jan wrote:

Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

Thank you, Pamela. Well, that is interesting, is it not? Yet again the doubt that Richard had any deformity at all, but was granted it by the benevolence of the Tudors? How can we, the uninitiated, know the truth if the qualified experts cannot agree? (If the font size of this is chaotic, I apologise. I don't know what's wrong with it.) Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts

Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)?  The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine.  The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground.  The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd)  Cardiff"
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>


  Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell.   Sandra =^..^=

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

So if the bones aren't humpbacked, it's not Richard? Well now, his logic is infallible. Everyone backpedal immediately, and let's arrange a new dig in the River Soar.
I have to admit, I'm looking forward to any papers published analyzing his spine.

~Weds

On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=




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

Hi,

Supposed to be packing, but couldn't resist this one. Lucky you!

I'm afraid Richard didn't get any further than Exeter so far as we can tell, but it may be he stopped at places where he didn't issue any documents; certainly there are days during that period for which no specific evidence of whereabouts has been found. What is known is that he was at Dorchester and then Bridport on 5th November, and at Exeter on the 8th, 12th, 13th and 14th, then at Bridgewater on the 15th. For Richard's itinerary, I really can recommend 'The Itinerary of Richard III' by Rhoda Edward's. It's a very slim booklet, not at all expensive, and I think is still available from the Society sales officer.

But do visit Exeter cathedral if you haven't been before. It's beautiful and even has a medieval cat flap.

Dartington Hall had belonged to Richard's Lancastrian bro-in-law Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, and I think it's possible that the oldest parts that survive today were built by him. Then, like the rest of the duchy of Exeter lands, it went to his estranged wife, Richard's sister Anne. After her death it was evidently granted for life to Dorset, who had been married to Anne's first daughter Anne, the one she had by the Duke of Exeter. That Anne died young (c.15?), and left no issue, but she may have had a child that had died (perhaps she herself died in childbirth) as that would explain Dorset's claim to a life interest in the Exeter estates. There's a reference in the Stonor Letters to Dorset's wife using Dartington Hall. It's from a letter written in May 1482 by Stonor's servant John Payn, who was visiting Dorset at Taunton Castle: Also now I am sorry that my Lady Anne [Stonor's third wife, Montagu's daughter Anne Neville] departeth from these parties, for my Lady [of Dorset] and all the household shall hastily to Dartington, and there remain and bide a season.

I assume from this that Lady Anne Stonor was an attendant of Dorset's wife Cecily Bonville.

Who knows, young Anne St Leger and Warwick may even have been raised at Dartington whilst they were Dorset's wards?

Sorry about the change of font, size, italics, emboldening, etc, etc. I did a cut and paste and am stuck with it all now.

Marie

He signed himself: One of your servants, John Payne, with my Lord Marquis.

(Stonor, vol 2, no 314)

Hi,

Supposed to be packing, but couldn't resist this one. Lucky you!

I'm afraid Richard didn't get any further than Exeter so far as we can tell, but it may be he stopped at places where he didn't issue any documents; certainly there are days during that period for which no specific evidence of whereabouts has been found. What is known is that he was at Dorchester and then Bridport on 5th November, and at Exeter on the 8th, 12th, 13th and 14th, then at Bridgewater on the 15th. For Richard's itinerary, I really can recommend 'The Itinerary of Richard III' by Rhoda Edward's. It's a very slim booklet, not at all expensive, and I think is still available from the Society sales officer.

But do visit Exeter cathedral if you haven't been before. It's beautiful and even has a medieval cat flap.

Dartington Hall had belonged to Richard's Lancastrian bro-in-law Henry Holland Duke of Exeter, and I think it's possible that the oldest parts that survive today were built by him. Then, like the rest of the duchy of Exeter lands, it went to his estranged wife, Richard's sister Anne. After her death it was evidently granted for life to Dorset, who had been married to Anne's first daughter Anne, the one she had by the Duke of Exeter. That Anne died young (c.15?), and left no issue, but she may have had a child that had died (perhaps she herself died in childbirth) as that would explain Dorset's claim to a life interest in the Exeter estates. There's a reference in the Stonor Letters to Dorset's wife using Dartington Hall. It's from a letter written in May 1482 by Stonor's servant John Payn, who was visiting Dorset at Taunton Castle: Also now I am sorry that my Lady Anne [Stonor's third wife, Montagu's daughter Anne Neville] departeth from these parties, for my Lady [of Dorset] and all the household shall hastily to Dartington, and there remain and bide a season.

I assume from this that Lady Anne Stonor was an attendant of Dorset's wife Cecily Bonville.

Who knows, young Anne St Leger and Warwick may even have been raised at Dartington whilst they were Dorset's wards?

Sorry about the change of font, size, italics, emboldening, etc, etc. I did a cut and paste and am stuck with it all now.

Marie

He signed himself: One of your servants, John Payne, with my Lord Marquis.

(Stonor, vol 2, no 314)

ÿ If the remains, DNA-verified by JA-H, don't have a humped back then that is because Richard didn't then and still doesn't. ----- Original Message ----- From: SandraMachin To: Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Richard III doubts

Thank you, Pamela. Well, that is interesting, is it not? Yet again the doubt that Richard had any deformity at all, but was granted it by the benevolence of the Tudors? How can we, the uninitiated, know the truth if the qualified experts cannot agree? (If the font size of this is chaotic, I apologise. I don't know what's wrong with it.) Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts

Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

Coming from an orthopaedic surgeon it should be pretty formidable evidence. Obviously more knowledgeable than Dr Oops.

Mary

That was my understanding too Sandra.

Mary

I noticed a newspaper article using the term Cousins Wars for the WOTR
or the wars between Lancaster and York, so the fiction writer has
already got some of her "imaginings" - for use of a better term- into
the public conscience.

Having failed to track down any reference in my library of Ricardian and
related studies, I asked Annette Carson if she knew where the term came
from, and if it had ever been used before Philippa Gregory invented it.
Two months later and she too still has to find a single use of the term
anywhere before the late 1990s and the appearance of PG's novels!

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Marie responds:

The problem is, David, that foreign commentators who met him - such as Commines and Von Poppelau - didn't mention the scoliosis or raised shoulder either. It's quite likely there was nothing visible when he was clothed, and that it was only the stripping of his body after the battle that brought the wonky spine to public attention. A real expert would need to look at the spine, but to even the casual observer the huge gaps between the vertebrae at the bends look implausible. I don't think anyone on the forum is saying there was no scoliosis, only that the Leicester team jumped the gun in announcing it to be severe, and that they should really have passed the problem over to someone with specialised knowledge of the condition.

Marie

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul,
I am not in the Richard was deformed camp.

But I am in the camp that believes that the Tudors did not force people to make up stories about him.

Your reply to my email has arrived before the original.

However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime.

As an example, take the extant portrait of Margaret of Bavaria - a known sufferer of Kyphosis (classic hunch back). It shows no sign of her condition.

The easiest way to find it is from the Kyphosis wikipedia page under famous sufferers.

Regards
David


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2013 8:37:40 AM

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard&apos;s spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Paul,
I am not in the Richard was deformed camp.

But I am in the camp that believes that the Tudors did not force people to make up stories about him.

Your reply to my email has arrived before the original.

However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime.

As an example, take the extant portrait of Margaret of Bavaria - a known sufferer of Kyphosis (classic hunch back). It shows no sign of her condition.

The easiest way to find it is from the Kyphosis wikipedia page under famous sufferers.

Regards
David


From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2013 8:37:40 AM

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard&apos;s spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Daivd wrote:

"However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime."

Marie responds:

Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back.

So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw.

By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis.

Marie

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Daivd wrote:

"However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime."

Marie responds:

Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back.

So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw.

By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis.

Marie

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I agree totally that this is the time for the scientists to completely examine and come to firm conclusions about Richard's skeleton, however, does it actually matter if he had a scoliosis or not? It would be no indication whatever regarding the content of his character. Disability does not make a man what he is, except in some cases making him stronger, Therefore I can't say that any spinal problem he may or may not have had is a "disagreeable myth" although if it was not true it would be a good example of a Tudor lie. Jess


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2013, 13:14
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
I rather gained the impression that Michael Young felt there was no deformity at all, humped back or otherwise, including the apparent C-shaped curvature of the spine. He believed Richard was normal' and that the perceived damage to his spine was post-death, due to heavy-handed manner of the burial. Unpleasant Tudor propaganda, needed to stay in power and bury Richard's reputation with his body, happened to hit gold with the 15th/16th century psyche, and thus with succeeding centuries as well, but then Henry Tudor was unpleasantly lucky! He turned Richard III into a monster. Michael Young was merely blaming the disgracefully hasty (had to be hasty, I'm not blaming the friars) original interment and the blinkered know-all assumptions made by modern experts'. The sooner poor old Richard is put together' again, and we see him as his bones prove he really was, the better. That is surely the only way to settle the was he-wasn't he' question. We already know from Wednesday's careful reconstruction that if there was a curvature, it was considerably less than UoL would have us think. Loath as I am to have Richard's remains poked around with again, I feel that at the very least, when he is laid to rest in his coffin, which has to happen regardless, he can be assembled' with absolute accuracy and the truth noted. By accuracy I mean just that, no sleight of hand to suit one opinion or another. Perhaps this would still not achieve the desired result, being 2D, I don't know, but when Richard's skeleton is still within reach like this (soon to be gone forever again in his tomb) surely at the very least we can do right by his true appearance? He at least deserves to have this disagreeable myth buried with him. We can't get rid of them all, but this particular legend' can be vanquished by the truth. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts ÿ If the remains, DNA-verified by JA-H, don't have a humped back then that is because Richard didn't then and still doesn't. ----- Original Message ----- From: SandraMachin To: Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Richard III doubts Thank you, Pamela. Well, that is interesting, is it not? Yet again the doubt that Richard had any deformity at all, but was granted it by the benevolence of the Tudors? How can we, the uninitiated, know the truth if the qualified experts cannot agree? (If the font size of this is chaotic, I apologise. I don't know what's wrong with it.) Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

I have searched EEBO (digitized versions of early English books) Eighteenth Century Collections Online (which includes many books published in the 18th century, including my obscure English Racing Calendars) & Google Books. Between these collections, this covers most of the books in english published since the printing press arrived in England.  The only "hits" I found were references to PG.
A J

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
 

I noticed a newspaper article using the term Cousins Wars for the WOTR
or the wars between Lancaster and York, so the fiction writer has
already got some of her "imaginings" - for use of a better term- into
the public conscience.

Having failed to track down any reference in my library of Ricardian and
related studies, I asked Annette Carson if she knew where the term came
from, and if it had ever been used before Philippa Gregory invented it.
Two months later and she too still has to find a single use of the term
anywhere before the late 1990s and the appearance of PG's novels!

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

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

Marie responds:

Crowland, writing very soon after the battle, doesn't pick it up but perhaps because, although hostile to Richard, he was disapproving of the treatment of his body (he didn't report the story that Richard had poisoned Anne either, although we know it was current when Richard made his speech at Clerkenwell). The next commentator is Rous, who wound up his account towards the end of 1488. He tells us Richard's appearance was defective, and his right shoulder was higher than his left. There are no more chronicles that I can think of until 1495, but in 1492 that York schoolmaster said Richard was a hypocrite and a crouchback and was buried in a ditch like a dog. Interesting perhaps that he runs Richard's spinal problem together with his burial.

Marie

Marie responds:

Agreed, this would not identify Richard, but the horse was for transporting him through the countryside to Leicester. On arrival, he was displayed face up at the Newark for identification purposes.

Marie

Marie responds,We all discussed this sort of question at some length at the time. The old posts might be worth looking through if Yahoo will still allow a search. Afraid I have no more time to write,Marie What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him?

--- In , <> wrote:

Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why? Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-up over a horse, as we have been lead to understand. Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle. This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it. What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him? That's enough from me, I think. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:03 PM To: Subject: RE: Re : Re: Richard III doubts

Daivd wrote:

"However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime."

Marie responds:

Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back.

So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw.

By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis.

Marie

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Marie responds:

Crowland, writing very soon after the battle, doesn't pick it up but perhaps because, although hostile to Richard, he was disapproving of the treatment of his body (he didn't report the story that Richard had poisoned Anne either, although we know it was current when Richard made his speech at Clerkenwell). The next commentator is Rous, who wound up his account towards the end of 1488. He tells us Richard's appearance was defective, and his right shoulder was higher than his left. There are no more chronicles that I can think of until 1495, but in 1492 that York schoolmaster said Richard was a hypocrite and a crouchback and was buried in a ditch like a dog. Interesting perhaps that he runs Richard's spinal problem together with his burial.

Marie

Marie responds:

Agreed, this would not identify Richard, but the horse was for transporting him through the countryside to Leicester. On arrival, he was displayed face up at the Newark for identification purposes.

Marie

Marie responds, We all discussed this sort of question at some length at the time. The old posts might be worth looking through if Yahoo will still allow a search. Afraid I have no more time to write, Marie What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him?

I'd like to post an image file, if possible. It shows several images.

The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve. There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture. The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.

From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.

Tamara

I'd like to post an image file, if possible. It shows several images.

The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve. There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture. The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.

From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.

Tamara

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

I'd like to post an image file, if possible. It shows several images.

The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve. There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture. The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.

From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.

Tamara

Hi David and all

It would be helpful, to me particularly, I don't know about others, if the phrase the Tudors could be narrowed down and identified to specifics instead of using Tudors generally. The period covers 118 years from 1485 to 1603 and individuals were writing at different periods under different regimes some of which were more harsh than others. Even so, within those regimes, there were periods when state control and state propaganda differed in content and in relation to perceived threats.

Please don't think this is a criticism of you, just a general plea for more specific information.
Elaine

--- In , Durose David <daviddurose2000@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> I am not in the Richard was deformed camp.
>
> But I am in the camp that believes that the Tudors did not force people to make up stories about him.
>
> Your reply to my email has arrived before the original.
>
> However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime.
>
> As an example, take the extant portrait of Margaret of Bavaria - a known sufferer of Kyphosis (classic hunch back). It shows no sign of her condition.
>
> The easiest way to find it is from the Kyphosis wikipedia page under famous sufferers.
>
> Regards
> David
>

"Bosworth was over by mid-morning, wasn't it? Henry Tudor undoubtedly
remember he needed to retrieve Richard's body to display it well
within the described limit to get him bent over the horse. But
considering the end of Tudor's baggage train didn't arrive in
Leicester until late that afternoon, the body may not have been lying
flat as it was displayed. (I don't like the image either, but biology
is biology.)"

Marie responds:

I've considered that. He would surely have been in rigor mortis when he arrived at the Newark. If he had been bent face down over a horse, then he might have looked hump-backed when initially laid out, but he was lying there at least two days and the muscles would have relaxed again during that period and gravity would have taken care of any front'-back curvature caused by the RM.

But I've also wondered whether rigor mortis could also have pulled the scoliosis into a more extreme shape. Because that was side-to-side it wouldn't necessarily have righted itself when the RM passed off.

Marie

Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why? Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-down over a horse, as we have been lead to understand. Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle. This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it. What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him? That's enough from me, I think. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:03 PM To: Subject: RE: Re : Re: Richard III doubts

Daivd wrote:

"However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime."

Marie responds:

Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back.

So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw.

By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis.

Marie

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Marie responds:

But we are not told that happened, only that he was brought from the battlefield to Leicester slung over a horse, and displayed to public view at the Newark. Had he been taken round crowded streets over a horse, to be poked and prodded at, that would really have shocked the chroniclers but they don't mention it. Laying out the body of the dead leader in a church, with a cloth over the loins, had become standard procedure in the Wars of the Roses to show the person was dead (and, if they were supposed to have died from natural causes, that there were no injuries).

Marie

Coming from an orthopaedic surgeon it should be pretty formidable evidence. Obviously more knowledgeable  than Dr Oops.

Mary 

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Yes, there are already 3-D reconstructions. Brief glimpses were shown in the 2nd "King in the Car Park" video (I know that's not the official name, but don't remember what its real name is). It also looks as if this "reconstruction" was used by Toby Capwell & his illustrator-partner to create the images he used in his talk about Richard's armor at the Leicester conference. Someone somewhere (probably FB) also mentioned that there is a full body skeletal reconstruction that can be seen publicly. The link provided took me to images of the same reconstruction shown in the video. Sorry I cannot provide the link or further context since I looked at it briefly & then deleted it.] A J

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Does anyone know if there are already 3D reconstructions of Richard's whole skeleton? Did UofL do some when they did the skull, or after they did the skull? After what I've said in other posts today, it seems that if they were going to do the head, why not do the rest of him as well? Sandra =^..^= From: Paul Trevor Bale Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:37 AM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

I suspect that forensic anthropologists don't have nearly as much data available for full-body reconstructions, although the team at Dundee did do one for one of their episodes (I want to say "Stirling Man" but that might be wrong). A J

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Thank you, AJ. I didn't notice in the documentary, or perhaps it's better to say I don't remember. I still have the recording, so much watch it again. Wouldn't you think there would be more publicity about this other reconstruction? It would give us all a much better idea of what Richard appeared like when he was upright. And if there was a way of fleshing him out', so to speak (with clothes!) we'd really know. Oh, why don't they DO it! Sandra =^..^= From: A J Hibbard Sent: Monday, September 16, 2013 3:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts Yes, there are already 3-D reconstructions. Brief glimpses were shown in the 2nd "King in the Car Park" video (I know that's not the official name, but don't remember what its real name is). It also looks as if this "reconstruction" was used by Toby Capwell & his illustrator-partner to create the images he used in his talk about Richard's armor at the Leicester conference. Someone somewhere (probably FB) also mentioned that there is a full body skeletal reconstruction that can be seen publicly. The link provided took me to images of the same reconstruction shown in the video. Sorry I cannot provide the link or further context since I looked at it briefly & then deleted it.] A J

On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 11:45 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Does anyone know if there are already 3D reconstructions of Richard's whole skeleton? Did UofL do some when they did the skull, or after they did the skull? After what I've said in other posts today, it seems that if they were going to do the head, why not do the rest of him as well? Sandra =^..^= From: Paul Trevor Bale Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:37 AM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Don't worry Sandra, you are forgiven!
I have to come clean here, I have recently retired from being a Dyslexia Adviser at degree level, and I have also done some historical research on the history of special needs education. OK, it is a long way from the Wars of the Roses, but it does inform my views. To me, it doesn't matter what Richard's disabilities are, although I agree with you totally about wanting to know the truth about what he was actually like, rather than what Tudor propaganda has to say. In medieval times a distorted body was a sign of a distorted mind, but we know better. We need to understand how disability was seen then, and how we perceive it now in light of our greater knowledge.
I am so enjoying the debates here, and the warm welcome and helpful advice I have received, so thank you very much, from a novice.
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2013, 20:38
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
Hello Jessie. I did not mean disagreeable myth' in quite that way, truly. I would just like to know what he was really like. I do not care what was wrong with him, provided it was wrong with him, because I do not want him to be burdened forever with things he may not have had. At least his skeleton has dispelled the myth about his withered arm. That's a beginning. OK, if he had a withered arm, he would still be Richard, the man we support, but why should he be given such an arm if he did not have one? If you see my meaning. I'd care if I one day in the future looked down from my fluffy cloud on high and found out there were untruths circulating about my appearance and character. Richard may be doing just that, because he'll surely be on a cloud and not roasting down in that Other Place. Sandra =^..^= From: Jessie Skinner Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:30 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts I agree totally that this is the time for the scientists to completely examine and come to firm conclusions about Richard's skeleton, however, does it actually matter if he had a scoliosis or not? It would be no indication whatever regarding the content of his character. Disability does not make a man what he is, except in some cases making him stronger, Therefore I can't say that any spinal problem he may or may not have had is a "disagreeable myth" although if it was not true it would be a good example of a Tudor lie. &nb sp; &nbs p; ; Jess


From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2013, 13:14
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
I rather gained the impression that Michael Young felt there was no deformity at all, humped back or otherwise, including the apparent C-shaped curvature of the spine. He believed Richard was normal' and that the perceived damage to his spine was post-death, due to heavy-handed manner of the burial. Unpleasant Tudor propaganda, needed to stay in power and bury Richard's reputation with his body, happened to hit gold with the 15th/16th century psyche, and thus with succeeding centuries as well, but then Henry Tudor was unpleasantly lucky! He turned Richard III into a monster. Michael Young was merely blaming the disgracefully hasty (had to be hasty, I'm not blaming the friars) original interment and the blinkered know-all assumptions made by modern experts'. The sooner poor old Richard is put together' again, and we see him as his bones prove he really was, the better. That is surely the only way to settle the was he-wasn't he' question. We already know from Wednesday's careful reconstruction that if there was a curvature, it was considerably less than UoL would have us think. Loath as I am to have Richard's remains poked around with again, I feel that at the very least, when he is laid to rest in his coffin, which has to happen regardless, he can be assembled' with absolute accuracy and the truth noted. By accuracy I mean just that, no sleight of hand to suit one opinion or another. Perhaps this would still not achieve the desired result, being 2D, I don't know, but when Richard's skeleton is still within reach like this (soon to be gone forever again in his tomb) surely at the very least we can do right by his true appearance? He at least deserves to have this disagreeable myth buried with him. We can't get rid of them all, but this particular legend' can be vanquished by the truth. Sandra =^..^= From: Stephen Lark Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:47 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts ÿ If the remains, DNA-verified by JA-H, don't have a humped back then that is because Richard didn't then and still doesn't. ----- Original Message ----- From: SandraMachin To: Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 2:00 PM Subject: Re: Richard III doubts Thank you, Pamela. Well, that is interesting, is it not? Yet again the doubt that Richard had any deformity at all, but was granted it by the benevolence of the Tudors? How can we, the uninitiated, know the truth if the qualified experts cannot agree? (If the font size of this is chaotic, I apologise. I don't know what's wrong with it.) Sandra =^..^= From: Pamela Furmidge Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2013 1:46 PM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts Here is the letter, Sandra:
"Sir, May I add my doubts regarding the bones found in Leicester (letter, Sept 12)? The C-shaped curvature of the spine in the published photo of the skeleton does not have the appearance of a structural 'hump back' as seen in clinical practice, and neither the grossly angled position of the head nor the less than anatomical distribution of the limb bones appear (sic) to have disturbed commentators who attributed such significance to the spine. The appearance of the skeleton may be a consequence of throwing a body into a hole in the ground. The spinal curvature cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence that the deceased had such a deformity in life.
The bones - if indeed they are those of the king - do not confirm that he had the deformity that seems to have escaped comment during his life but which was evident to Tudor and other subsequent commentators. Michael H. Young. (Consultant orthopaedic surgeon, ret'd) Cardiff" From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>

Does anyone subscribe to The Times, online or print? I do not, but Google Alert shows me there is a letter in the paper today, entitled Richard III doubts', concerning Richard's spine. I can only read the beginning, then, infuriatingly, they fade the rest of it. It might be interesting, or a load of guff, I cannot tell. Sandra =^..^=

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

 I'd like to post an image file, if possible.  It shows several images.

The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve.  There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture.  The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.

From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other.  Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.

Tamara

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

Aha! That 3D recreation isn't angled nearly so badly as in the grave. So now we see why he was capable of riding, fighting, breathing, and why no one noticed the spinal curvature during his lifetime.

The acute curvature in the grave made no sense at all...the 3D representation clarifies a lot.

~Weds




On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM, <khafara@...> wrote:

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

I'd like to post an image file, if possible. It shows several images.

The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve. There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture. The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.

From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.

Tamara

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

Marie responds

re rigor mortis: "In humans, it commences after about three to four hours, reaches maximum stiffness after 12 hours, and gradually dissipates until approximately 48 to 60 hours after death" (Wikipedia). So it may or may not have totally receded by the time he was buried but would certainly no longer have been extreme. Since the 3D images (thank you, whoever it was found those) have confirmed that despite Leicester's assertion to the contrary, the scoliotic area of the spine had been squeezed together in the grave, perhaps this is further evidence that the RM had worn off by that time.

Marie

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

I am surprised he stayed at a tavern when there was a perfectly good castle in town...Eileen
--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Um... first line refers to the Blue [White?] Boar Inn as a tavern...that
> Richard spent his las night in a tavern?
>
> Weren't taverns and inns entirely separate establishments in the 15th
> century?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:10 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Leicester and David Baldwin seem to have the bit between their teeth now.
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Site-king-s-night-given-special/story-19801343-detail/story.html#axzz2f8Bb2J8P
> >
> > Sandra
> > =^..^=
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

I am surprised he stayed at a tavern when there was a perfectly good castle in town...Eileen

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

Well I read the Amy Licence book and thought she did make an effort to be balanced. There isn't really much evidence out there on Anne so she did do some padding but on each point like the princes, the deaths of Edward of Lancaster, Henry VI and all the events of 1483, she showed all sides of the argument to let you make up your own mind. Plus it was really well written.

janjovian wrote:

As a recent Ricardian convert, what books /authors would members here recommend as giving a balanced view of Richard?

I am currently reading Richard III The Maligned King by Annette Carson, and have just finished Anne Neville Richard III's Tragic Queen by Amy Licence, and John Ashdown-Hill's, The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA.

Am I doing OK so far, and If so, what else could you all suggest?

Carol responds:

Welcome to the ranks of Ricardian converts! I haven't read Amy License, but from what I've heard, she's neither accurate nor balanced. Otherwise, you're off to an excellent start with Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill. I would recommend adding Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard to that list. It's out of date in some respects (many documents have surfaced since it was written), but it's highly readable and generally favorable toward Richard. Charles Ross's biography (now considered the standard) attempts to be objective but is influenced by the traditionalist perspective. We have a few interesting articles in our Files that you may find useful. Source books like Hammond and Sutton's "Road to Bosworth" are useful if you concentrate on the primary documents rather than the commentary (or the biased excerpts from Croyland and Mancini). Probably the most useful sources are the ones I don't have access to right now, the Harleian manuscripts and York Civic Records.

Carol

Letter to the Times, 17th September 2013. Bones of contention. Sir, In response to the letter from Michael H .Young [Sept. 14], the skeleton identified as Richard III has been extensively examined by our osteoarchaeologist Dr Jo Appleby, orthopaedic consultant, scoliosis expert and osteoarchaeologist Dr Piers Morgan [Peterborough City Hospital. and Division of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge] and Bruno Morgan [ Imaging Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary]. The diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has been made on the basis of the pathology of the vertebrae in addition to the position of the body in the grave. The curvature is not consistent with an awkward body position in the grave. Scientific publication of their research will appear shortly. PROFESSOR LIN FOXHALL Head of School, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester. Jan, who read this this morning waiting for the plumber.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 22:53
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard III doubts
And we have seen other skeletons unearthed with similar curvature. I think the manner of body placement probably made it look all the more pronounced.o
On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:09 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

Aha! That 3D recreation isn't angled nearly so badly as in the grave. So now we see why he was capable of riding, fighting, breathing, and why no one noticed the spinal curvature during his lifetime.

The acute curvature in the grave made no sense at all...the 3D representation clarifies a lot.

~Weds




On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM, <khafara@...> wrote:
Can't post files, but here's the website link: http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png


--- In , <> wrote:

Also, the images on the lower row that look like x-rays? They're not, they're actually the U of Leicester's CGI 3D reconstructions of Richard's spine.

Tamara


--- In , <> wrote:

I'd like to post an image file, if possible. It shows several images. The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve. There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture. The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13. From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other. Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime. Tamara



--- In , <> wrote:

Wouldn't it be very difficult to tie a body onto a horse face up, without almost breaking its back? Joints are not designed to bend that way after all. Not impossible, but hard to do. Also, how long had Richard been dead before he was tied to the horse? What about the effects of rigor mortis?
Jess
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2013, 22:44
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard III doubts
Re: Richard III doubts Sandra wrote: "Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why?" Marie responds: Crowland, writing very soon after the battle, doesn't pick it up but perhaps because, although hostile to Richard, he was disapproving of the treatment of his body (he didn't report the story that Richard had poisoned Anne either, although we know it was current when Richard made his speech at Clerkenwell). The next commentator is Rous, who wound up his account towards the end of 1488. He tells us Richard's appearance was defective, and his right shoulder was higher than his left. There are no more chronicles that I can think of until 1495, but in 1492 that York schoolmaster said Richard was a hypocrite and a crouchback and was buried in a ditch like a dog. Interesting perhaps that he runs Richard's spinal problem together with his burial. Marie Sandra: " Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-up [meant face-down] over a horse, as we have been lead to understand." Marie responds: Well that is what was understood at the time: not even a cloth to cover his privy member. Marie Sandra: "Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle." Marie responds: Agreed, this would not identify Richard, but the horse was for transporting him through the countryside to Leicester. On arrival, he was displayed face up at the Newark for identification purposes. Marie This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it. Marie responds, We all discussed this sort of question at some length at the time. The old posts might be worth looking through if Yahoo will still allow a search. Afraid I have no more time to write, Marie What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him?

--- In , <> wrote:

Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why? Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-up over a horse, as we have been lead to understand. Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle. This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it. What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are. I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him? That's enough from me, I think. Sandra =^..^= From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:03 PM To: Subject: RE: Re : Re: Richard III doubts Daivd wrote: "However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime." Marie responds: Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back. So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw. By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis. Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Paul,
I am not in the Richard was deformed camp.

But I am in the camp that believes that the Tudors did not force people to make up stories about him.

Your reply to my email has arrived before the original.

However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime.

As an example, take the extant portrait of Margaret of Bavaria - a known sufferer of Kyphosis (classic hunch back). It shows no sign of her condition.

The easiest way to find it is from the Kyphosis wikipedia page under famous sufferers.

Regards
David

From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2013 8:37:40 AM

On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!





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

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

Of course he didn't stay in a tavern. What is Baldwin up to? After
selling books perhaps? Never trusted him.
Paul

On 17/09/2013 21:20, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> I am surprised he stayed at a tavern when there was a perfectly good castle in town...Eileen
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Um... first line refers to the Blue [White?] Boar Inn as a tavern...that
>> Richard spent his las night in a tavern?
>>
>> Weren't taverns and inns entirely separate establishments in the 15th
>> century?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:10 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Leicester and David Baldwin seem to have the bit between their teeth now.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Site-king-s-night-given-special/story-19801343-detail/story.html#axzz2f8Bb2J8P
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>> =^..^=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for posting this link. You should be able to post the page to our Files if you save the page to your own computer (or phone or whatever first). Just click on the Files link, click "Add File," and follow the directions from there. I've saved the page to the Richard III files on my PC and will be happy to post it to the Files for you if need be.

Apologies if the problem is already resolved. I can't see the responses to your post thanks the the goons at Yahoo and their "improvements."

By the way, someone who uses Facebook might want to post this link there where it will be publicly accessible. And why--*why*?--hasn't Leicester made the reconstruction of Richard's skeleton publicly available? What a difference between that and Jo Appleby's unrealistic 2-D layout of his bones on a table, designed to reinforce her faulty interpretation that he was a hunchback!

Carol

According to the Itinerary of King Richard lll Rhoda Edwards Richard was at Leicester from Sunday 17 July 1483 to Wednesday 20th...he was definitely at Leicester Castle on on Monday 18th. Of his last stay in Leicester it is only noted that 'two nights were spent in the town before leaving on Sunday......" Hmmmm not exactly helpful....Eileen

--- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's in Kendall and/or Ashdown-Hill that the castle wasn't
> inhabitable?
>
> The White Boar Tavern it was. Drink up, me hearties, yo ho.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 1:20 PM, EILEEN BATES <eileenbates147@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> >
> > I am surprised he stayed at a tavern when there was a perfectly good
> > castle in town...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Wednesday McKenna
> > <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Um... first line refers to the Blue [White?] Boar Inn as a tavern...that
> > > Richard spent his las night in a tavern?
> > >
> > > Weren't taverns and inns entirely separate establishments in the 15th
> > > century?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:10 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Leicester and David Baldwin seem to have the bit between their teeth
> > now.
> > > >
> > > >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Site-king-s-night-given-special/story-19801343-detail/story.html#axzz2f8Bb2J8P
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > > =^..^=
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> > > - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>

I really liked the introduction and all the details she used from other sources. I've read quite a lot of Richard books and Hicks's Anne Neville and Licence had lots of details like Edward of Middleham's tutor and manuals of the day and poems that I thought were really interesting. I thought she did a good job with not much information and its always nice to have things from Anne's perspective. I didn't think there was much bias.

Tamara wrote:

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for posting this link. You should be able to post the page to our Files if you save the page to your own computer (or phone or whatever first). Just click on the Files link, click "Add File," and follow the directions from there. I've saved the page to the Richard III files on my PC and will be happy to post it to the Files for you if need be.

Apologies if the problem is already resolved. I can't see the responses to your post thanks the the goons at Yahoo and their "improvements."

By the way, someone who uses Facebook might want to post this link there where it will be publicly accessible. And why--*why*?--hasn't Leicester made the reconstruction of Richard's skeleton publicly available? What a difference between that and Jo Appleby's unrealistic 2-D layout of his bones on a table, designed to reinforce her faulty interpretation that he was a hunchback!

Carol

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

Of course he didn't stay in a tavern. What is Baldwin up to? After
selling books perhaps? Never trusted him.
Paul

On 17/09/2013 21:20, EILEEN BATES wrote:
> I am surprised he stayed at a tavern when there was a perfectly good castle in town...Eileen
> --- In , Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>> Um... first line refers to the Blue [White?] Boar Inn as a tavern...that
>> Richard spent his las night in a tavern?
>>
>> Weren't taverns and inns entirely separate establishments in the 15th
>> century?
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 12:10 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Leicester and David Baldwin seem to have the bit between their teeth now.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Site-king-s-night-given-special/story-19801343-detail/story.html#axzz2f8Bb2J8P
>>>
>>> Sandra
>>> =^..^=
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> - *Friend:* Are you upset about the outcome of the election?
>> - *Me:* I'm upset about the outcome of the War of the Roses.
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

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

But the skeleton was also examined by an orthopaedic surgeon. This is not just the view of one person but a consensus of opinion.

Jess

From: Wednesday McKenna <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 17:25
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts letter from Prof Foxhall

  "The curvature is not consistent with an awkward body position in the grave," wrote Dr. Lyn Foxhall.

Ya think?

So Dr. Oops will backpedal in her paper, on her way to tenure. Here's hoping said paper also contains the definitive phrase, "I oops'd a lot onscreen; the king wasn't a hunchback, either."

Can't wait for the peer review of her material. She is not an orthopedic surgeon. She is not an expert in scoliosis. Here's hoping she's had a swallow at the humility pill we all encounter, and that Richard is teaching her a few things on her way to becoming a published professional.

~Weds



On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:41 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
  Well, one thing's certain, they can't all be right.  And their bragged-about osteoarchaeologist is an expert in bashing bones, as I recall. I'm tempted to mutter something about expert texperts, but maybe not.   Sandra =^..^=   From: J MULRENAN Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 11:29 AM To: Subject: Re: Richard III doubts letter from Prof Foxhall       Letter to the Times, 17th September 2013.   Bones of contention.   Sir, In response to the letter from Michael  H .Young [Sept. 14], the skeleton identified as Richard III has been extensively examined by our osteoarchaeologist Dr Jo Appleby, orthopaedic consultant, scoliosis expert and osteoarchaeologist Dr Piers Morgan [Peterborough City Hospital. and Division of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge] and Bruno Morgan [ Imaging Department, Leicester Royal Infirmary].                 The diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis has been made on the basis of the pathology of the vertebrae in addition to the position of the body in the grave.  The curvature is not consistent with an awkward body position in the grave. Scientific publication of their research will appear shortly. PROFESSOR LIN FOXHALL Head of School, School of Archaeology and Ancient History, University of Leicester.   Jan, who read this this morning waiting for the plumber.
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013, 22:53
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard III doubts
    And we have seen other skeletons unearthed with similar curvature. I think the manner of body placement probably made it look all the more pronounced.o
On Sep 16, 2013, at 4:09 PM, "Wednesday McKenna" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

  Aha! That 3D recreation isn't angled nearly so badly as in the grave. So now we see why he was capable of riding, fighting, breathing, and why no one noticed the spinal curvature during his lifetime.

The acute curvature in the grave made no sense at all...the 3D representation clarifies a lot.

~Weds




On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM, <khafara@...> wrote:
  Can't post files, but here's the website link:   http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png


--- In , <> wrote:

Also, the images on the lower row that look like x-rays?  They're not, they're actually the U of Leicester's CGI 3D reconstructions of Richard's spine.

Tamara
 

--- In , <> wrote:

I'd like to post an image file, if possible.  It shows several images.   The first image is Richard's skeleton in situ, showing the curve.  There are also examples of X-rays of modern people with similar curves, showing how little it affects the person's posture.  The girl in the second X-ray is an award-winning rock climber - although admittedly she did have to have her spine surgically stabilized, after achieving the same level of curvature as Richard at age 13.   From what I understand, Richard's spine was curved two-dimensionally, not three-dimensionally, and fully dressed it would have manifested to the observer not as a crouchback but simply as one shoulder being slightly higher than the other.  Since the number of people who ever saw him naked (and in a well-lit space) when he was alive, especially once he was past infancy, can likely be counted on the fingers of one hand (Anne, his mother, his personal physician, and perhaps Francis Lovel or Rob Percy), it's not surprising that he was never called a "crouchback" during his lifetime.   Tamara



--- In , <> wrote:

Wouldn't it be very difficult to tie a body onto a horse face up, without almost breaking its back? Joints are not designed to bend that way after all. Not impossible, but hard to do. Also, how long had Richard been dead before he was tied to the horse? What about the effects of rigor mortis?
  Jess
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 15 September 2013, 22:44
Subject: RE: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard III doubts
      Re: Richard III doubts Sandra wrote: "Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why?" Marie responds: Crowland, writing very soon after the battle, doesn't pick it up but perhaps because, although hostile to Richard, he was disapproving of the treatment of his body (he didn't report the story that Richard had poisoned Anne either, although we know it was current when Richard made his speech at Clerkenwell). The next commentator is Rous, who wound up his account towards the end of 1488. He tells us Richard's appearance was defective, and his right shoulder was higher than his left. There are no more chronicles that I can think of until 1495, but in 1492 that York schoolmaster said Richard was a hypocrite and a crouchback and was buried in a ditch like a dog. Interesting perhaps that he runs Richard's spinal problem together with his burial. Marie   Sandra: " Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-up [meant face-down] over a horse, as we have been lead to understand."     Marie responds: Well that is what was understood at the time: not even a cloth to cover his privy member. Marie   Sandra: "Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle." Marie responds: Agreed, this would not identify Richard, but the horse was for transporting him through the countryside to Leicester. On arrival, he was displayed face up at the Newark for identification purposes. Marie   This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it. Marie responds, We all discussed this sort of question at some length at the time. The old posts might be worth looking through if Yahoo will still allow a search. Afraid I have no more time to write, Marie   What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are.   I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him?

--- In , <> wrote:

Hello Marie. If Bosworth was the time his spine was finally seen to be crooked, when did the stories about it begin to circulate? Immediately? Or was there a delay? If the latter, why? Clearly I'm wondering if he was as fully naked and displayed, face-up over a horse, as we have been lead to understand. Humiliating him was obviously a spur in the proceedings, but it was his face that Henry would have been particularly keen on displaying to the world. Richard was memorable, his face could not have been mistaken by all those who saw him ride out from Leicester to do battle.   This brings me to wonder (meandering imagination surfaces again, I fear) exactly how Richard was slung over the horse. Naked, yes, but which way over the animal's back, face-up or face-down? Not such a stupid question, and one that has been raised before, I think. Face-down, he would bend quite easily, but his face wouldn't be visible, especially with all that hair. Unless they cut it off, which the complete absence of his hair now cannot prove one way or the other. But still his face would not be clear. If it was face-up, showing his features quite well, how would his body have bent over the horse? He was not a big man, and the horse might have been large  it would if it was a warhorse  but they had no need to fear damaging him or causing pain, because he was already well and truly dead. So who cares? Hurl him over, lads. OK, there are humiliation wounds to his buttock, and it is taken for granted that this could only be because he was slung over the horse face-down. But what if that buttock wound was inflicted at some other moment? Before he was hurled over the horse? Or when he was dragged off it? What, even, if he was covered but for his face? Such a buttock wound could still be inflicted. The whereabouts of a man's buttocks is easy enough to guess from the way his face is shown. Anything is possible, no matter how unlikely. Yes, he probably had scoliosis, I'm not saying otherwise, I'm just wondering who could have seen what when he was hauled back to Leicester. Afterward he would have been laid out on display face-up, surely? So no one would see his spine then. And would they really have left the King of England lying there absolutely in the raw? Would even Henry Tudor sanction that? Not to say he didn't, just that there can be doubt. Do we actually have proof he issued such an order? Or did not correct the outrage when he heard of it.   What if being dragged or flung face-up over the horse caused damage to Richard's spine? Would a spine that was thus damaged, immediately at death or just afterward, show that damage for what it was caused by over five hundred years later, after being squeezed into a too-small grave all that time? A crunched spine is a crunched spine, the cause, unlike knife wounds and so on, might not be so obvious or identifiable. And might such damage be perceived, now, purely as the result of natural physical deformity, aided by being too long in the ground? Flinging him over a horse on his back would likely hurt the spine, but would leave the ribs unharmed, which Richard's are.   I guess I don't know quite what I am trying to get at here (nor does anyone else, I'll bet!) but there seems to me to be a possibility that Richard's spine as it is at present, might not have been the same up to the moment of death, as might seem to us to be the case. In other words, might there have been other factors in the distortion of Richard's spine than a natural malformation and burial in a grave that was too small for him?   That's enough from me, I think.   Sandra =^..^=   From: mariewalsh2003 Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2013 7:03 PM To: Subject: RE: Re : Re: Richard III doubts     Daivd wrote: "However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime."   Marie responds: Or it could be that everybody was painting either what they saw or knew to be true: the original artist nor the artist, his 16th century copyist, and the person who made the alteration to the extant copy. Paul does have a point - scoliosis doesn't apparently show up much under clothing, and this would be even more the case with the heavily padded togs that 15th-century noblemen wore. And if the scoliosis was not as severe as Leicester have led us to believe then there is even less chance that it would have been visible when Richard was clothed. But at Bosworth Richard's condition was robbed of  its usual camouflage, and he was bent over the back of a horse, bringing his spine into relief. From that point on there was general knowledge that he had had a crooked back. So the man who painted Richard's portrait may have faithfully painted what he saw. By the by, I notice that Margaret of Bavaria was painted in such a way that the majority of her spine is off picture, only the neck and shoulder area (one shoulder) showing. Also, I personally don't know the sources for Margaret having a hunchback, and we perhaps need to be careful because until last year the Tudor references to Richard's 'crookback' were also assumed to refer to kyphosis. Marie

--- In , <> wrote:

Paul,
I am not in the Richard was deformed camp.

But I am in the camp that believes that the Tudors did not force people to make up stories about him.

Your reply to my email has arrived before the original.

However, if you have two conflicting pieces of evidence - say a painting that seems to have been changed in a subtle way, or Rous who contradicts himself, then you can not draw a logical conculsion that the later evidence was necessarily a result of political pressure. It could be the other way, or more likely the artist / writer acting with more freedom about the previous regime.

As an example, take the extant portrait of Margaret of Bavaria - a known sufferer of Kyphosis (classic hunch back). It shows no sign of her condition.

The easiest way to find it is from the Kyphosis wikipedia page under famous sufferers.

Regards
David

  From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Richard III doubts
Sent: Sun, Sep 15, 2013 8:37:40 AM

  On 15/09/2013 00:05, Durose David wrote:
> My view on Richard's spine is that it is not surprising at all that there is little mention of it in his lifetime - it takes a special courage to speak truth unto power.
Clearly you are in the Richard was deformed camp. That damn woman on the
tv programme screaming about something she was not qualified to make any
comment on!

Actually my view is that nobody mentioned it during his lifetime because
nothing was visible, as in the case of many of our contemporaries who
have scoliosis, Michael Phelps being the one I always mention. Had
anything been visible his enemies would have made much of it. Not even
Collyngbourne mentioned anything physical, missing a great opportunity
had there been anything there.

Paul

--
Richard Liveth Yet!





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




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

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

I can't access the website link. Can anyone help?
Elaine

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

My cynical, assumed answer to the question as to why Leicester hasn't published this scan to clarify the matter of Richard's curvature is that Dr. Appleby is seeking to publish the results to further her career, and she likely doesn't want the scan  posted or analyzed by anyone until she and her (finally) qualified partner publishes their  analysis. 
Which would be, IMHO, all the more reason to post it to Facebook. But again...I'm cynical and still fuming over this woman's assumption that "The bent up, hunchbacky skeletal presentation in the grave is the same presentation we'd have when he was upright." Her assumption on television reached a heck of a lot more people than her paper ever will. 
~Weds

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:01 AM, <justcarol67@...> wrote:
 

Tamara wrote:

Can't post files, but here's the website link:

http://imaginarymongoose.co.uk/holdall/C-curve-2.png

Carol responds:

Thanks very much for posting this link. You should be able to post the page to our Files if you save the page to your own computer (or phone or whatever first). Just click on the Files link, click "Add File," and follow the directions from there. I've saved the page to the Richard III files on my PC and will be happy to post it to the Files for you if need be.

Apologies if the problem is already resolved. I can't see the responses to your post thanks the the goons at Yahoo and their "improvements."

By the way, someone who uses Facebook might want to post this link there where it will be publicly accessible. And why--*why*?--hasn't Leicester made the reconstruction of Richard's skeleton publicly available? What a difference between that and Jo Appleby's unrealistic 2-D layout of his bones on a table, designed to reinforce her faulty interpretation that he was a hunchback!

Carol

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

This is the Amy Licence who says that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth of York and went on pilgrimage to Canterbury to atone for killing the princes? Unbiased? The number of times Edward IV went to Canterbury means he must have killed a few people! Amy is not a historian (who is,t o quote Arthur Marwick, someone with several years' post PhD research). She's yet another person cashing in on the current interest in Richard - as she did with the Tudors. Sorry, if I sound crabby but we have enough trouble undoing the myths of the past  without others like PG and Amy adding a whole new dimension to them.
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2013, 0:03
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Reliable reading on Richard III
  Actually, I agree with that.
From: "katia.james90@..." <katia.james90@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 September 2013, 20:49
Subject: RE: RE: Reliable reading on Richard III
  Well I read the Amy Licence book and thought she did make an effort to be balanced. There isn't really much evidence out there on Anne so she did do some padding but on each point like the princes, the deaths of Edward of Lancaster, Henry VI and all the events of 1483, she showed all sides of the argument to let you make up your own mind. Plus it was really well written.  --- In , <> wrote:  janjovian wrote:

As a recent Ricardian convert, what books /authors would members here recommend as giving a balanced view of Richard?I am currently reading Richard III The Maligned King by Annette Carson, and have just finished Anne Neville Richard III's Tragic Queen by Amy Licence, and John Ashdown-Hill's, The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA. Am I doing OK so far, and If so, what else could you all suggest?
Carol responds:
Welcome to the ranks of Ricardian converts! I haven't read Amy License, but from what I've heard, she's neither accurate nor balanced. Otherwise, you're off to an excellent start with Annette Carson and John Ashdown-Hill. I would recommend adding Paul Murray Kendall's biography of Richard to that list. It's out of date in some respects (many documents have surfaced since it was written), but it's highly readable and generally favorable toward Richard. Charles Ross's biography (now considered the standard) attempts to be objective but is influenced by the traditionalist perspective. We have a few interesting articles in our Files that you may find useful. Source books like Hammond and Sutton's "Road to Bosworth" are useful if you concentrate on the primary documents rather than the commentary (or the biased excerpts from Croyland and Mancini). Probably the most useful sources are the ones I don't have access to right now, the Harleian manuscripts and York Civic Records.
Carol

Wednesday wrote:

Carol responds:

Weds, have you compared it side by side with the 2D representation that you did to show that Jo Appleby's version was distorted? That would be interesting, to me, at least.

I really hope that someone is planning a full-body reconstruction along the lines of the Lucy, Nariokotome Boy, and Neanderthal Man reconstructions, but clothed appropriately. That would, I think, end the misconception that Tudor got the "hunchback" right, so he must be right about the "murders," too. For me, that's the most important reason to end the hunchback myth once and for all. And, of course, it would help the public understanding of scoliosis as a side benefit.

Carol

Have you read Licence's book? Actually she says that it is rubbish that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth of York. Whatever you want to call her, she's still written a really good book on the topic. I've also read Annette Carson's really good book and she's not a "historian" either.

Perhaps you're thinking of Alison Weir, she thinks that Richard wanted to marry Elizabeth but Licence argues with her theory.

I had no idea when I came here that there was such antipathy against Dr Appleby. It was obviously a great mistake that was made when a hole was made through Richard;s skull, but it is certainly not for me to condemn someone for making an error, we all do that.

She is a well qualified osteoarcheologist and seems perfectly suitable for the job she was given according to her CV.

OK she said Richard was a hunchback, but that was when the body was first discovered and we, all of us, might have exclaimed anything at such a time.

As you can see, I try not to blame or resent anyone. There is no point.

How can you lay bones on to a table in exactly the position they would have been in life? As you say, you can;t, and until all of the research is complete and hopefully released we will none of us know the degree of Richard's scoliosis.

However, as you say, we do know that he was affected by this condition, and not to the extent that it stopped him from living an extremely active life.

We know that, we don't actually need to know much more than that as history.

There has been much discussion today about Richard's burial, and whether continual access should be afforded to his skeleton.

I would say, no.

Get a good assessment done now, and then let the poor man rest in peace

Elaine wrote:

Elaine wrote:

I just wanted to say, I am still reading, and ordering books, avidly. All of your suggestions have been most helpful, and I do feel that I am starting to understand many of the issues and points of contention surrounding Richard III.

I have a long way to go before I reach the level of erudition on the subject to be found here, though..