Three to dinner

Some time last week someone asked (I'm sure it was Eileen) which three, from everyone connected with/involved in/ the WOTRs, we would like to invite to dinner. My grey cells have been considering this interesting notion. It goes without saying that, for me, the first would be Richard. The second would be HT, whose actual character, thoughts and opinions I'd dearly like to know. Finally Warwick the Kingmaker, who could cosy up to Richard, then to HT, then to neither, while glowering threateningly at them over the sirloin. With his vast army drawn up outside, of course. No pressure there. Sandra =^..^=

Can I give more than one dinner? I'd serve hyocras at all of them.....
First dinner:Our Northampton crew: Richard, Buckingham and and Anthony. Bring up the topic of that fateful conference and see what everyone says.
Second dinner: Richard, Anne, Edward of Middleham. Just a nice, relaxing family gathering.
Third dinner:Morton, Hastings, Thomas Stanley. I'd just serve and wait outside, with the door closed and a stethoscope pressed against it.
Fourth dinner: Poor confused Mr. Stoner. Sgnr. Mancini. Dr. Argentine.
Fifth dinner:Henry T., Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville.
After that, I'd just wash the dishes and comfort the cats by telling them no more company; we can cuddle and crochet now.
Maria ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Some time last week someone asked (I’m sure it was Eileen) which three, from everyone connected with/involved in/ the WOTRs, we would like to invite to dinner. My grey cells have been considering this interesting notion. It goes without saying that, for me, the first would be Richard. The second would be HT, whose actual character, thoughts and opinions I’d dearly like to know. Finally Warwick the Kingmaker, who could cosy up to Richard, then to HT, then to neither, while glowering threateningly at them over the sirloin. With his vast army drawn up outside, of course. No pressure there. Sandra =^..^=

For me it would have to be the three matriarchs. MB would lecture Cis and Anne Beauchamp on what they did wrong in bringing up those kids. And I as a mother of two daughters would side with Anne Beauchamp so that Rous would say something nice about me in his memoirs. But cheating, like Maria, I'd also love to invite R (of course), Buckingham and Francis Lovell. You can hear it now, can't you 'But you promised to go riding with me tomorrow, Richard!' H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 13:28, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
Can I give more than one dinner? I'd serve hyocras at all of them.....
First dinner:Our Northampton crew: Richard, Buckingham and and Anthony. Bring up the topic of that fateful conference and see what everyone says.
Second dinner: Richard, Anne, Edward of Middleham. Just a nice, relaxing family gathering.
Third dinner:Morton, Hastings, Thomas Stanley. I'd just serve and wait outside, with the door closed and a stethoscope pressed against it.
Fourth dinner: Poor confused Mr. Stoner. Sgnr. Mancini. Dr. Argentine.
Fifth dinner:Henry T., Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville.
After that, I'd just wash the dishes and comfort the cats by telling them no more company; we can cuddle and crochet now.
Maria ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Some time last week someone asked (I'm sure it was Eileen) which three, from everyone connected with/involved in/ the WOTRs, we would like to invite to dinner. My grey cells have been considering this interesting notion. It goes without saying that, for me, the first would be Richard. The second would be HT, whose actual character, thoughts and opinions I'd dearly like to know. Finally Warwick the Kingmaker, who could cosy up to Richard, then to HT, then to neither, while glowering threateningly at them over the sirloin. With his vast army drawn up outside, of course. No pressure there. Sandra =^..^=

Hilary wrote: And I as a mother of two daughters would side with Anne Beauchamp so that Rous would say something nice about me in his memoirs. Sandra replies: Now that is truly planning ahead, Hilary. I approve. And poor old Richard, to keep the peace he'd have to go out riding in a threesome or not at all. Unless he too was planning ahead, and anticipated Buckingham's treachery. =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 2:44 PM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

For me it would have to be the three matriarchs. MB would lecture Cis and Anne Beauchamp on what they did wrong in bringing up those kids. And I as a mother of two daughters would side with Anne Beauchamp so that Rous would say something nice about me in his memoirs. But cheating, like Maria, I'd also love to invite R (of course), Buckingham and Francis Lovell. You can hear it now, can't you 'But you promised to go riding with me tomorrow, Richard!' H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 13:28, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
Can I give more than one dinner? I'd serve hyocras at all of them..... First dinner: Our Northampton crew: Richard, Buckingham and and Anthony. Bring up the topic of that fateful conference and see what everyone says. Second dinner: Richard, Anne, Edward of Middleham. Just a nice, relaxing family gathering. Third dinner: Morton, Hastings, Thomas Stanley. I'd just serve and wait outside, with the door closed and a stethoscope pressed against it. Fourth dinner: Poor confused Mr. Stoner. Sgnr. Mancini. Dr. Argentine. Fifth dinner: Henry T., Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville. After that, I'd just wash the dishes and comfort the cats by telling them no more company; we can cuddle and crochet now. Maria ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Some time last week someone asked (I'm sure it was Eileen) which three, from everyone connected with/involved in/ the WOTRs, we would like to invite to dinner. My grey cells have been considering this interesting notion. It goes without saying that, for me, the first would be Richard. The second would be HT, whose actual character, thoughts and opinions I'd dearly like to know. Finally Warwick the Kingmaker, who could cosy up to Richard, then to HT, then to neither, while glowering threateningly at them over the sirloin. With his vast army drawn up outside, of course. No pressure there. Sandra =^..^=

My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

I'd have His Grace of course, and George & Buckingham & ask them WTF were they playing at?! I'd also - if allowed(!) have Philipa Gregory as waitress so she can pick up some whispered tid-bits for another half researched book...!

On 21 February 2014 10:44, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

For me it would have to be the three matriarchs. MB would lecture Cis and Anne Beauchamp on what they did wrong in bringing up those kids. And I as a mother of two daughters would side with Anne Beauchamp so that Rous would say something nice about me in his memoirs. But cheating, like Maria, I'd also love to invite R (of course), Buckingham and Francis Lovell. You can hear it now, can't you 'But you promised to go riding with me tomorrow, Richard!' H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 13:28, Maria Torres <ejbronte@...> wrote:
Can I give more than one dinner? I'd serve hyocras at all of them.....
First dinner:Our Northampton crew: Richard, Buckingham and and Anthony. Bring up the topic of that fateful conference and see what everyone says.
Second dinner: Richard, Anne, Edward of Middleham. Just a nice, relaxing family gathering.
Third dinner:Morton, Hastings, Thomas Stanley. I'd just serve and wait outside, with the door closed and a stethoscope pressed against it.
Fourth dinner: Poor confused Mr. Stoner. Sgnr. Mancini. Dr. Argentine.
Fifth dinner:Henry T., Elizabeth of York, Elizabeth Woodville.
After that, I'd just wash the dishes and comfort the cats by telling them no more company; we can cuddle and crochet now.
Maria ejbronte@...

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 7:09 AM, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Some time last week someone asked (I’m sure it was Eileen) which three, from everyone connected with/involved in/ the WOTRs, we would like to invite to dinner. My grey cells have been considering this interesting notion. It goes without saying that, for me, the first would be Richard. The second would be HT, whose actual character, thoughts and opinions I’d dearly like to know. Finally Warwick the Kingmaker, who could cosy up to Richard, then to HT, then to neither, while glowering threateningly at them over the sirloin. With his vast army drawn up outside, of course. No pressure there. Sandra =^..^=

--
LisaThe Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services Baddeck, Nova Scotia.Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
www.Antiques-Boutique.com Like us on www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique View our Ceramic Restoration Photos

I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster. H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

Regarding setting out the cutlery, does anyone happen to know if any of these vital WOTRs personages were left-handed? Or was that sort of thing thwacked out of them from the moment it showed up? Did all knights have to be right-handed? To prove they weren't involved with sinister forces? Or whatever else the superstitious belief that caused such suffering for left-handed folk through the centuries. I mean, if Big Ed was left-handed, would Eileen have to set his cutlery to acknowledge that, or would it have to be laid the customary way and he'd shuffle it around surreptitiously in the hope no one paid attention? An unlikely situation, I know, but once these things occur to me . . . . Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28 AM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster. H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

Hilary wrote: "I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready. I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster." Doug here: Perhaps because, as Bertie had his Jeeves, George had his Isobel? While there *is* a lot of Bertie Wooster in George (that reliance on others to either keep him out of trouble or get him out afterwards), I can't see him, for example, recovering a creamer for his aged aunt; ie, caring about someone other than himself (and Isobel). It may very well be that it's not that George *didn't* do such things, but that we don't just don't *know* about them. Still, I somehow have the impression that George would be more like one of Wodehouse's villains, and not a member of the Drones! My three would be Morton, James Tyrell and Richard himself. The first two to, hopefully, answer a few (!) questions and Richard mainly to see if my impression of what he may have been like is accurate. Doug who wonders if, rather than a mere dinner, the un-ending tea party from "Alice..." wouldn't be necessary...

Jan here.If you jousted you held the lance in your right hand no matter what & you practised till you got it right. This came up in one of Toby Capwell's lectures.

Sent from my iPad
On 22 Feb 2014, at 09:59, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Regarding setting out the cutlery, does anyone happen to know if any of these vital WOTRs personages were left-handed? Or was that sort of thing thwacked out of them from the moment it showed up? Did all knights have to be right-handed? To prove they weren't involved with sinister forces? Or whatever else the superstitious belief that caused such suffering for left-handed folk through the centuries. I mean, if Big Ed was left-handed, would Eileen have to set his cutlery to acknowledge that, or would it have to be laid the customary way and he'd shuffle it around surreptitiously in the hope no one paid attention? An unlikely situation, I know, but once these things occur to me . . . . Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28 AM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster. H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

Thank you, Jan. I suppose the cutlery was the same. You practised until you could slice your beef deftly with the right hand. So, left-handers had more to learn and practise than their more numerous right-handed brethren. Not fair. Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:32 PM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

Jan here. If you jousted you held the lance in your right hand no matter what & you practised till you got it right. This came up in one of Toby Capwell's lectures.

Sent from my iPad
On 22 Feb 2014, at 09:59, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Regarding setting out the cutlery, does anyone happen to know if any of these vital WOTRs personages were left-handed? Or was that sort of thing thwacked out of them from the moment it showed up? Did all knights have to be right-handed? To prove they weren't involved with sinister forces? Or whatever else the superstitious belief that caused such suffering for left-handed folk through the centuries. I mean, if Big Ed was left-handed, would Eileen have to set his cutlery to acknowledge that, or would it have to be laid the customary way and he'd shuffle it around surreptitiously in the hope no one paid attention? An unlikely situation, I know, but once these things occur to me . . . . Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28 AM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster. H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

Didn't the fork as we know it become a common utensil relatively late - 17th century or so?
As for left-handedness, I do know that even in the 19th century left-handed children were regularly taught to be right-handed. I think it would have been the done thing in earlier centuries.
For writing, drawing etc. it's probably harder, but I imagine that, with enough practice, doing well at swordfighting and such with the 'wrong' hand would be quite possible. I mean, take a look at Rafael Nadal: he's right-handed, but he was taught to play with his left hand, and it certainly hasn't stopped him...
Pansy

Doug wrote:"While there *is* a lot of Bertie Wooster in George (that reliance on others to either keep him out of trouble or get him out afterwards), I can't see him, for example, recovering a creamer for his aged aunt; ie, caring about someone other than himself (and Isobel)."
Didn't Bertie's aunts always blackmail and/or browbeat him into doing those things, though? ;)
Now that this idea of George as Bertie Wooster was introduced to my brain, I seem to be unable to shake it off! I now see him as a Bertie Wooster with a dash of Blackadder, and a tendency to bright ideas à la Baldrick's 'I've got a cunning plan...'
Poor George. But somebody ought to write a story in which he's blackmailed by Jacquetta Woodville to steal Thomas Cook's tapestry and in which he often splutters indignantly 'I say, look here, now --'
Pansy

Maria wrote:

"Can I give more than one dinner? I'd serve hyocras at all of them..... [snip]"

Carol responds:

Be sure to pour a touch of truth serum into that hippocras! Otherwise, you'll get self-interested half-truths from many of your guests (Buckingham, Morton, and Stanley, for three). But, yes, Anthony Woodville for sure. He knew he was going to die (executed for treason against Richard), but he made Richard his executor. He must not have felt betrayed. It's more as if the game was up and he was resigned to the fate he deserved.

Carol

Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

Jan back again.A left-hander would be going against a right-hander more often than not & that would result in some nasty tangles with lances going into bodies in places you weren't supposed to hit. On a battlefield I imagine you'd have more freedom of movement. Apparently late medieval plate armour was so good its wearers could dispense with shields & so carry two weapons if they were on foot. Supporters could carry spare weapons for their leaders

On 22 Feb 2014, at 15:42, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Thank you, Jan. I suppose the cutlery was the same. You practised until you could slice your beef deftly with the right hand. So, left-handers had more to learn and practise than their more numerous right-handed brethren. Not fair. Sandra =^..^= From: Jan Mulrenan Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 3:32 PM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

Jan here. If you jousted you held the lance in your right hand no matter what & you practised till you got it right. This came up in one of Toby Capwell's lectures.

Sent from my iPad
On 22 Feb 2014, at 09:59, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:

Regarding setting out the cutlery, does anyone happen to know if any of these vital WOTRs personages were left-handed? Or was that sort of thing thwacked out of them from the moment it showed up? Did all knights have to be right-handed? To prove they weren't involved with sinister forces? Or whatever else the superstitious belief that caused such suffering for left-handed folk through the centuries. I mean, if Big Ed was left-handed, would Eileen have to set his cutlery to acknowledge that, or would it have to be laid the customary way and he'd shuffle it around surreptitiously in the hope no one paid attention? An unlikely situation, I know, but once these things occur to me . . . . Sandra =^..^= From: Hilary Jones Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:28 AM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner I think it's a one to one with George over a large latte, Eileen and a box of tissues at the ready I'd want him to explain how history has turned him into this sort of PG Wodehouse young man - you know the sort with the striped blazer and fast car who's always an inch from disaster. H

On Friday, 21 February 2014, 18:27, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner,,,there are so many,.,I would love to hear what Mr Catesby has to say for himself....Eileen

Pansy wrote:

"Didn't the fork as we know it become a common utensil relatively late - 17th century or so?"
Carol responds:

I don't know whether it was that late (I think the French already used forks in Richard's time), but if I recall correctly, "cutlery" consisted of a dinner knife that everyone, men and women, carried around with them. A servant might have used a carving fork to slice the meat but not to eat it. (I suppose they used their fingers rather than stabbing bites on the end of a knife like a Viking or pirate.) Again, if I recall correctly, Henry VII bought two gold forks as a curiosity or collector's item, but I don't think he ever used them. I can just imagine the state of their napkins (or handkerchiefs?) at the end of the meal. They did have finger bowls, I think.

Carol, who didn't research this post and is probably wrong in every detail!

Hello folks,

It's Jess back from the USA and catching up with the discussions here. Love the dinner party scenario.
If I could just be a fly on the wall, Elizabeth Woodville, Eleanor Butler and Jane Lambert might be interesting to say the least.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Three to dinner
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 6:04:53 PM

 

Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

I think we might need one of the moveable feasts, where we travel from threesome to threesome. I would love to hear from the ladies, Anne, Mother Plantagenet and Ankarette.
On Feb 22, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

That sounds a good idea, Pamela. Richard and the "two princes in the Tower" would be interesting too, and Sir James Tyrell can buy me afternoon tea anytime!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Three to dinner
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 6:29:59 PM

 

I think we might need one of the moveable feasts, where we travel from threesome to threesome. I would love to hear from the ladies, Anne, Mother Plantagenet and Ankarette.  
On Feb 22, 2014, at 12:04 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:

 

Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

George did indeed sail close to the wind....Eileen

Jess,
a brilliant choice! Liz
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 22 February 2014, 18:18
Subject: Re: Three to dinner



Hello folks, It's Jess back from the USA and catching up with the discussions here. Love the dinner party scenario.
If I could just be a fly on the wall, Elizabeth Woodville, Eleanor Butler and Jane Lambert might be interesting to say the least.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Three to dinner
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 6:04:53 PM

Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

Thank you, Liz,

Want to join me listening in!

Jess

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Three to dinner
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 10:04:48 PM

 

Jess,
a brilliant choice!   Liz
From: Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Saturday, 22 February 2014, 18:18
Subject: Re: Three to dinner



Hello folks, It's Jess back from the USA and catching up with the discussions here. Love the dinner party scenario.
If I could just be a fly on the wall, Elizabeth Woodville, Eleanor Butler and Jane Lambert might be interesting to say the least.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Three to dinner
Sent: Sat, Feb 22, 2014 6:04:53 PM

  Eileen wrote:

"My choice Richard and poor George but having trouble with the third diner, [snip]"

Carol responds:

How about their sister Margaret for a nice family dinner? We could find out whether George really was her favorite brother, where she was when her little brothers and mother were captured at Ludlow, how she felt about Richard's deposing their nephews and taking the throne (I think she approved), whether he sent the boys to her, and what was up with Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck.

Carol

A friend of mine wanted to state the following Re: how Richard et al dealt with meat:
-----------
..... They *didn't* slice their meat. I suppose a cook must have cut it into hunks, but when it got to the table they just picked it up in one hand and bit pieces off it, then wiped their fingers. That's why Richard (and everybody else from the period) has that dead-straight bite, and why modern people who use modern cutlery have overbites. The queen, famously, eats chicken that way. It's also part of why Richard's chin is so prominent - I mean he did have a big chin, but had he lived now, and had an overbite, it would have been set back a bit, and everybody in his period would on average have had more prominent chins than we do, because they *didn't* have an overbite.

Let me get this straight. We're not talking chicken in the basket here, presumably, because the Queen would be no different from everyone else, we all eat that with our fingers. Well, everyone I know does. You're saying that's how she eats chicken, full stop? So she sits at a banquet in all her jewels and finery, and eats chicken with her fingers? What about the gravy or white wine sauce????? =^..^= From: khafara@... Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:48 AM To: Subject: Re: Three to dinner

A friend of mine wanted to state the following Re: how Richard et al dealt with meat:
-----------
..... They *didn't* slice their meat. I suppose a cook must have cut it into hunks, but when it got to the table they just picked it up in one hand and bit pieces off it, then wiped their fingers. That's why Richard (and everybody else from the period) has that dead-straight bite, and why modern people who use modern cutlery have overbites. The queen, famously, eats chicken that way. It's also part of why Richard's chin is so prominent - I mean he did have a big chin, but had he lived now, and had an overbite, it would have been set back a bit, and everybody in his period would on average have had more prominent chins than we do, because they *didn't* have an overbite.

Jan here.A couple of footnotes.Over bites probably are more common nowadays due to our knives & forks but straight bites still appear. Prof Caroline Wilkinson of Dundee University who reconstructed the king's head has one. She talks about it in the Leicester University video.Meat may have been cut in chunks by an inexpert carver but wasn't carving one of the skills that young men were meant to acquire as part of their social training? King's Carver was a position of honour. I did a brief search & found Sir Philip Wentworth for H6 d. 1464, Sir Gilbert Debenham appointed by E4 in 1471 d. 1500 & Anthony Mildmay for Charles 1.

Sent from my iPad
On 23 Feb 2014, at 00:48, <khafara@...> wrote:

A friend of mine wanted to state the following Re: how Richard et al dealt with meat:
-----------
..... They *didn't* slice their meat. I suppose a cook must have cut it into hunks, but when it got to the table they just picked it up in one hand and bit pieces off it, then wiped their fingers. That's why Richard (and everybody else from the period) has that dead-straight bite, and why modern people who use modern cutlery have overbites.

The queen, famously, eats chicken that way. It's also part of why Richard's chin is so prominent - I mean he did have a big chin, but had he lived now, and had an overbite, it would have been set back a bit, and everybody in his period would on average have had more prominent chins than we do, because they *didn't* have an overbite.

That's interesting, Maroonna! Though I wonder what explains e.g. John, Duke of Bedford, who seems to have had an overbite and receding chin, according to his portrait in the Bedford Hours: http://s3.amazonaws.com/magnoliasoft.imageweb/britishlibrary/supersize/k90037-45.jpg (though probably not quite to that extent). Or Anne's aunt Joan Neville, Countess of Arundel, who also had a weak chin: http://family.kavonrueter.com/Photos11.jpg
If the Rous Roll is anything to go by, Anne had one, too. Perfect counterpart for Richard, then ;)
Pansy

Pansy wrote:

"That's interesting, Maroonna! Though I wonder what explains e.g. John, Duke of Bedford, who seems to have had an overbite and receding chin, according to his portrait in the Bedford Hours: http://s3.amazonaws.com/magnoliasoft.imageweb/britishlibrary/supersize/k90037-45.jpg (though probably not quite to that extent). Or Anne's aunt Joan Neville, Countess of Arundel, who also had a weak chin: http://family.kavonrueter.com/Photos11.jpg If the Rous Roll is anything to go by, Anne had one, too. Perfect counterpart for Richard, then ;)"
Carol responds:

I'm not sure whether "overbite" as used in relation to forks has anything to do with weak chins. Certainly, it has nothing to do with what is crudely called "buck teeth," which we tooth-obsessed Americans pay thousands of dollars to orthodontists to correct. It has to do with what is now the normal "bite" of modern Europeans, Americans, and Asians (chopsticks cause it, too, apparently) as opposed to the so-called "guillotine bite," which was normal in Richard's time and is still found in non-fork-using cultures today. The most intriguing statement I found in any of the articles I checked (those that weren't just parroting Bee Wilson's delightful book, "Consider the Fork"), is that this trend happened too quickly to be the result of evolution and has more to do with the tendency of teeth to move around in the mouth (which is why it's possible and sometimes necessary to straighten them and why, unfortunately for me, my lower teeth moved back to where they were before I had them straightened because I had them taken off too soon.)

Anyway, here are two well-informed articles on the topic: http://benedante.blogspot.com/2013/03/overbites-and-history-of-civilization.html and http://gommes.net/wergosum/?p=3343 Note the photos in the second one, especially those of the people with "guillotine bites," which show us what Richard's smile may have looked like. (Ignore the mistake about Neanderthals being modern human ancestors.)

On a side note, when I first saw photos of Richard's skull, I thought that the archaeologists had (perhaps deliberately) misaligned the jaws. Nice to know that he represents the normal human condition! (Should we all start biting our meat now and give up those French-inspired innovations, forks? Naw. I'd rather have clean fingernails.)

Carol

Carol

Thanks, Carol. Interesting articles.My great- aunt often said "Fingers were made before forks" but she used a fork most of the time. My parents worked hard at my table manners!Jan.


On 23 Feb 2014, at 17:22, <justcarol67@...> wrote:

Pansy wrote:

"That's interesting, Maroonna! Though I wonder what explains e.g. John, Duke of Bedford, who seems to have had an overbite and receding chin, according to his portrait in the Bedford Hours: http://s3.amazonaws.com/magnoliasoft.imageweb/britishlibrary/supersize/k90037-45.jpg (though probably not quite to that extent). Or Anne's aunt Joan Neville, Countess of Arundel, who also had a weak chin: http://family.kavonrueter.com/Photos11.jpg If the Rous Roll is anything to go by, Anne had one, too. Perfect counterpart for Richard, then ;)"
Carol responds:

I'm not sure whether "overbite" as used in relation to forks has anything to do with weak chins. Certainly, it has nothing to do with what is crudely called "buck teeth," which we tooth-obsessed Americans pay thousands of dollars to orthodontists to correct. It has to do with what is now the normal "bite" of modern Europeans, Americans, and Asians (chopsticks cause it, too, apparently) as opposed to the so-called "guillotine bite," which was normal in Richard's time and is still found in non-fork-using cultures today. The most intriguing statement I found in any of the articles I checked (those that weren't just parroting Bee Wilson's delightful book, "Consider the Fork"), is that this trend happened too quickly to be the result of evolution and has more to do with the tendency of teeth to move around in the mouth (which is why it's possible and sometimes necessary to straighten them and why, unfortunately for me, my lower teeth moved back to where they were before I had them straightened bec ause I had them taken off too soon.)

Anyway, here are two well-informed articles on the topic: http://benedante.blogspot.com/2013/03/overbites-and-history-of-civilization.html and http://gommes.net/wergosum/?p=3343 Note the photos in the second one, especially those of the people with "guillotine bites," which show us what Richard's smile may have looked like. (Ignore the mistake about Neanderthals being modern human ancestors.)

On a side note, when I first saw photos of Richard's skull, I thought that the archaeologists had (perhaps deliberately) misaligned the jaws. Nice to know that he represents the normal human condition! (Should we all start biting our meat now and give up those French-inspired innovations, forks? Naw. I'd rather have clean fingernails.)

Carol

Carol

My friend replies to this as follows (and I promise this to be my last comment here):
-----------------
Neanderthals *are* part ancestors to modern Indo-Europeans, about 3% iirc, and their relatives the Denisovans are part ancestors to Orientals. Only pure-blooded sub-Saharan Africans are undiluted Homo sapiens sapiens. But I found an old photograph of the skull of a Bushman (so, a sub-Saharan African who had probably never used a fork in his or her life) and he or she had a guillotine bite, so there's no reason to think we got that level bite from our Neanderthal rather than our African ancestors.

Thank you, Carol and Maroonna, for the further clarification! That's very interesting; I had no idea. I always just assumed our bite is mostly genetic - as it is (or at least seems to be!!) in dogs. But then, very few dogs have an overbite, after all...

And when I talked about a weak chin, I obviously meant a misaligned/receding chin, which I've always assumed to be overbite-related (goes hand in hand in my case, anyway). The more you know&!

Carol wrote:

""(which is why it's possible and sometimes necessary to straighten them and why, unfortunately for me, my lower teeth moved back to where they were before I had them straightened because I had them taken off too soon.)"

The same happened to me :( In fact, my teeth got even worse, and now my jaws are very misaligned indeed - so much so that it's causing pain. Didn't know I could blame cutlery for it! Damn those forks.

Pan

Nevertheless, modern humans did not evolve from Neanderthals, who were their contemporaries and shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. There are other possible explanations for those few shared genes than the currently popular hypothesis that all modern Europeans had a common Neanderthal ancestor, but I won't go into that here. (BTW, I had a slave ancestor some 175 years ago, but you'd never know it to look at me. It doesn't take long for those genes to get lost in the mix. She was one among many, many ancestors, all of whom contributed genes to other ancestors, most of which [including all Y chromosomes, most mitochondrial DNA, and all but two X chromosomes] dropped out before they got to me. That's pretty much the way it would be with Neanderthal DNA only much more so unless a particular gene gave a very distinct survival advantage.)

Sorry to go so far off topic. It will be interesting to see how Richard's DNA compares with that of Michael Ibsen to see exactly how much has been changed or lost through seventeen generations.

Carol