Facial Reconstruction
Facial Reconstruction
I know that a reconstruction cannot give an exact likeness of an individual. It works perfectly well for the purpose it was created for ,for helping to identify victims of crimes or, as in Richard's case, confirm
the results of the other scientific investigations. I am at this point convinced that it is not enough to 3D-
print the results of the computer recreation, paint it, add more or less historically accurate details and
sell it as the real Richard.
If one was really interested to recreate the best possible likeness of a person, the thorough study of the
best portraiture should be the first step after the computer recreation was finished. If one can see that for instance the thickness of the tissues varies, like in Richard's case, the near contemporary picture should be given precedence over the average of the computer program. If one can see that the mouth on the portrait
looks finer that too should be considered. There should be a possibility of make free alterations on the
initial computer generated face, as we know that there are things disputable in it. I don't know if this
was possible but I wished it was. Then one could make a 3D-printing and carefully begin to do the
finishing
The other possibility would be to sculpture the face on a replica of the skull. That of course is not the
trendy technique on the computer but the old fashioned one, that needs a talented artist and is certainly
more expensive.But I have the impression that the hand sculptured facial recreations are more
convincing than the computer generated faces.
The recreated head of Richard was very disappointing for me, when I first saw it and it still is. I feel its making is disrespectful and inconsiderate.I want to list some points that IMO should never have happened.
1. The hat: Nowhere in any picture of the late 15. century have I seen such a hat. It is more a velvet cap
so large that it dwarfs Richard's face. On the first pictures of the head it looked like it was much to big and only the ears kept it from sliding down over the eyes.
2. The hat jewel: First it had a dropp-shaped pearl hanging from it, which was ok, but the pearl was hanging so low that it almost dangled in front of the eye. Then at a later stage it was replaced by a big round thing of
disputable aesthetic quality that hangs sloppingly on the fabric of the hat for which it seems to be to heavy.
3. The hair: Here also a change could be seen; from almost black hair to light brown. Or is it only the varying
light conditions on pictures? I don't know. But what i know that there is only a single picture were Richard is depicted with straight hair. That is the illustration were Earl Rivers presents his book to Edward IV.This might be a picture of Richard, but it is no portrait. Why then has Richard on the recreation head straight hair?
4.The eyebrows:How can anyone who seriously is bent to make a good likeness based on the portraits, as it was maintained, take the liberty of pasting these terrible eyebrows on the face,for which there is not the slightest historical evidence.
5.The painted face lines: As we all know the computer reproduction created a rather round face.To paint lines
around the eyes where there are no lines in the sculptured form, to make him look older, IMO does not work
and adds to the impression of a painted doll's face.
These are my points which lead me to the conclusion that the finishing of the facial recreation was made
without respect and care for Richard.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Have just spent a long time replying to your lovely post.But I have lost it .I will try to remember it and reply again tomorrow.
Kathryn x
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Eva - I don't often post on here but I do so agree with you about the reconstruction. I was desperately disappointed. Some mistakes are so basic, eg the face is angled upwards, so that he then has to be looking down his nose. It needs to come up at the back and down at the front. Agree the hat is a monstrosity the like of which he never wore (reminiscent of a town crier's hat?). The hair too coarse & black, the eyebrows appearing to be bristles from a broom. Then the quite full cheeks, as opposed to his slightly gaunt look, and worst of all some blusher! Now that it has been confirmed that the NPG portrait got the dimensions almost exactly right, we should follow that for lines on the face and the skin tone..
Lastly do you notice that the ends of the first and second fingers and the little finger of the right hand, that are so carefully concealed in the portrait, (two by the doublet, one by a ring) are in fact missing in the skeleton. These surely must have been the wound in the hand that he received at Barnet. The right thumb is also injured, but is actually shown. Perhaps the portrait was to go off to Joanna of Portugal.
Jennie
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Yes, you are right, Prof. Wilkinson did the reconstruction deliberately without consulting portraits as a
further test if the skull was Richard's. Though I think the average measurements were taken from modern man.
And that is a shortcoming of this method for average measurements can be completely wrong for an individual person.
IMO creating a head that will be seen as portraying the real Richard for the general public cannot be made without making use of the additional informations we have from the portraits and contemporary descriptions.They said they used the portraits as a reference for finishing of the 3D-printed head. I just can't see how. I think creating an image of a character like Richard, with all the myths and propaganda he has been subjected to, requires special circumspection. The creators of such a reconstruction should be aware of the responsibility they have as their work will have an impact on the people who see it.
When I first read of the idea of making a reproduction in John Ashdown Hill's book long before the bones where found, Ithought it a good idea. Now it feels more like a missed opportunity to me.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Could Richard's scolliosis have slightly altered the symmetry of his face, due to the forces directed from the bones to the muscles etc during movement?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:55:42 PM
Jan here.When I saw the reconstruction in the British Museum I could not avoid seeing a distinct difference between the left & right profiles. The right profile is the king's better side; the left one has a crescent shape to it which you can see in the online images. From front on this asymmetry wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. I haven't seen a proper profile sideways on yet & in the BM you couldn't get well to the side to look. If there is a proper side view online I have missed it.I see the reconstruction as the young Gloucester flushed with success after Tewkesbury rather than the sober king.
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Could Richard's scolliosis have slightly altered the symmetry of his face, due to the forces directed from the bones to the muscles etc during movement?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: @yahoogroups.com <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:55:42 PM
Jan here.When I saw the reconstruction in the British Museum I could not avoid seeing a distinct difference between the left & right profiles. The right profile is the king's better side; the left one has a crescent shape to it which you can see in the online images. From front on this asymmetry wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. I haven't seen a proper profile sideways on yet & in the BM you couldn't get well to the side to look. If there is a proper side view online I have missed it.I see the reconstruction as the young Gloucester flushed with success after Tewkesbury rather than the sober king.
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:31 AM, "Lolette Cook" <lolettecook@...> wrote:
I have scoliosis, and there is a difference in the symmetry of my face. Even in my ears! It took me years to realize the reason my sunglasses were crooked was because my ears were uneven. The right is higher as is my right shoulder. Though it is not
evident just by looking at me. When I look at Richard's portrait or the reconstruction, I see the same difference as I see in my own face
Vickie
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Could Richard's scolliosis have slightly altered the symmetry of his face, due to the forces directed from the bones to the muscles etc during movement?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: @yahoogroups.com <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:55:42 PM
Jan here.
When I saw the reconstruction in the British Museum I could not avoid seeing a distinct difference between the left & right profiles. The right profile is the king's better side; the left one has a crescent shape to it which you can see in the online images.
From front on this asymmetry wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. I haven't seen a proper profile sideways on yet & in the BM you couldn't get well to the side to look. If there is a proper side view online I have missed it.
I see the reconstruction as the young Gloucester flushed with success after Tewkesbury rather than the sober king.
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is much the same as
in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I
also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural
position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that
is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and
is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the
most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does
not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used
the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is
much the same as in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the
superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the
other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As
for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it
comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I think there is a picture from drajtoo under the heading "conference" on this forum, where she attempts to do so.I don't find her attempt convincing, it does not fit very well, in fact worse than the "wrong-sided" skull of Dr. Wilkinsons superimposition. And that does not surprise me for, she would not have had the facilities of a computer program with which she could turn the skull in every possible direction to fit it in in the right angle.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I also looked at the skeleton and what did I see there, apart from the missing joints you mentioned..I saw that there are only two of the top joints extant, namely on the thumb and third finger of the right hand.Do you really think he had lost nearly all his fingertips in life?
By the way, on the SOA portrait there are no finger joints missing.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Sunday, March 2, 2014 2:36 PM, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
The bones could just as well have been lost after the Battle of Bosworth. I cannot see any fingers missing on the NPG portrait. The thumb is crippled, but there is no sign that the first and second finger don't continue under the revers of the doublet. The little finger is very short indeed while the basic finger joints of the first and second fingers are much too long.Bad drawing that is for me. I can't follow your reasoning in that.
I also looked at the skeleton and what did I see there, apart from the missing joints you mentioned..I saw that there are only two of the top joints extant, namely on the thumb and third finger of the right hand.Do you really think he had lost nearly all his fingertips in life?
By the way, on the SOA portrait there are no finger joints missing.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I think so too, Pamela.
Thank you Lolette for giving us your personal experiences too.
I so admire the way Richard coped with bis disability as an active, armour clad, fighting man.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:37:18 PM
I think everyone (or almost) has some asymmetry in their facial structure, and slight differences thorough out the body.
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:31 AM, "Lolette Cook" <lolettecook@...> wrote:
I have scoliosis, and there is a difference in the symmetry of my face. Even in my ears! It took me years to realize the reason my sunglasses were crooked was because my ears were uneven. The right is higher as is my right shoulder. Though it is not
evident just by looking at me. When I look at Richard's portrait or the reconstruction, I see the same difference as I see in my own face
Vickie
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Could Richard's scolliosis have slightly altered the symmetry of his face, due to the forces directed from the bones to the muscles etc during movement?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: @yahoogroups.com <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:55:42 PM
Jan here.
When I saw the reconstruction in the British Museum I could not avoid seeing a distinct difference between the left & right profiles. The right profile is the king's better side; the left one has a crescent shape to it which you can see in the online images.
From front on this asymmetry wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. I haven't seen a proper profile sideways on yet & in the BM you couldn't get well to the side to look. If there is a proper side view online I have missed it.
I see the reconstruction as the young Gloucester flushed with success after Tewkesbury rather than the sober king.
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is much the same as
in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 2, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
I think so too, Pamela.
Thank you Lolette for giving us your personal experiences too.
I so admire the way Richard coped with bis disability as an active, armour clad, fighting man.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 2:37:18 PM
I think everyone (or almost) has some asymmetry in their facial structure, and slight differences thorough out the body.
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:31 AM, "Lolette Cook" <lolettecook@...> wrote:
I have scoliosis, and there is a difference in the symmetry of my face. Even in my ears! It took me years to realize the reason my sunglasses were crooked was because my ears were uneven. The right is higher as is my right shoulder. Though it is not
evident just by looking at me. When I look at Richard's portrait or the reconstruction, I see the same difference as I see in my own face
Vickie
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:16 AM, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Could Richard's scolliosis have slightly altered the symmetry of his face, due to the forces directed from the bones to the muscles etc during movement?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>;
To: @yahoogroups.com <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 1:55:42 PM
Jan here.
When I saw the reconstruction in the British Museum I could not avoid seeing a distinct difference between the left & right profiles. The right profile is the king's better side; the left one has a crescent shape to it which you can see in the online images.
From front on this asymmetry wasn't noticeable, at least not to me. I haven't seen a proper profile sideways on yet & in the BM you couldn't get well to the side to look. If there is a proper side view online I have missed it.
I see the reconstruction as the young Gloucester flushed with success after Tewkesbury rather than the sober king.
Sent from my iPad
On 2 Mar 2014, at 12:18, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Has anyone attempted to superimpose an image of the actual skull on to the reversed image of the SOA portrait? I haven't seen this, only the one of the skull morphing into the NPG portrait. It might be interesting to see if it does fit after all. Sandra =^..^= From: eva.pitter@... Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM To: Subject: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Jennie
You mentioned another shortcoming of the recreation head that I also noticed.That Richard is craining his chin forward in a most unnatural position.
I am afraid, but the NPG portrait was painted in the 1580ies, that is the time of Elisabeth I. The SOA portrait,
that was painted round 1520 and is cleaned from later disfigurement of the mouth is now considered to be
the most probable likeness of Richard. The SOA painting is reversed, but that does not mean that it really shows Richard's other side of the face. They just used the same master drawing and mirror inverted it. So the outline of the face is much the same as
in the NPG and RC portraits. It did not fit so good in the superimposition picture Prof. Wilkinson made becaus she superimposed the other side of the skull on it instead of using the mirror inverted skull.
As for the fingers: I don't trust the painter of the NPG painting much when it comes to the hands for they are very poorly drawn.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It's at least distinctly possible that the significant yet not dangerous wound was the loss of half a finger, which would fit the bill admirably - dramatic, yet with almost no risk of infection, and quite easy to stop it bleeding.
Tamara
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I just wanted to make it clear how absurd the idea of the missing fingers is.Sorry I bored you!
As a matter of fact, it bores me too. I hope Philippa's reassurance will be excepted at last.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Frank Castorf , a German stage-director says this about the historical Richards appearance: "They have reconstructed the skeleton of Richard from the bones they found last year. He probably was about
1.72 m tall, not small by the standards of his time, but slender, a rather elegant man, nothing uncouth about him, but rather something of an enchanting hermaphrodite"
Well the hermaphrodite is a bit extreme, but the rest is not so much off the mark, I think.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Just for curiosity's sake:
Frank Castorf , a German stage-director says
this about the historical Richards appearance: "They have reconstructed the
skeleton of Richard from the bones they found last year. He probably was
about
1.72 m tall, not small by the standards of his time, but slender, a
rather elegant man, nothing uncouth about him, but rather something of an
enchanting hermaphrodite"
Well the hermaphrodite is a bit extreme, but the
rest is not so much off the mark, I think.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Lord, Sandra, I should never read your posts whilst drinking tea... and now I can't erase that mental image of Helen Mirren as Richard. Help!
Mind you, I think the 'hermaphrodite' bit might be a language barrier thing - could it be he meant simply some androgynous characteristics?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It's a good theory, Tamara. Wouldn't that be a neat explanation for the 'withered arm' myth, as well?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Gilda
On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:38 AM, pansydobersby wrote:
Mind you, I think the 'hermaphrodite' bit might be a language barrier thing - could it be he meant simply some androgynous characteristics?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Whoever used the words, needs to look up the definition. That is a terrible thing…….and androgynous!
Pamela Bain| President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712
TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900
www.bmbi.com
7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
That was my first thought when I read it, that, going by the rest of the statement, he must have meant androgynous.
Gilda
On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:38 AM, pansydobersby wrote:
Mind you, I think the 'hermaphrodite' bit might be a language barrier thing - could it be he meant simply some androgynous characteristics?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Tamara wrote:
"It's at least distinctly
possible that the significant yet not dangerous wound was the loss of half a
finger, which would fit the bill admirably - dramatic, yet with almost no risk
of infection, and quite easy to stop it bleeding. "
It's a good theory,
Tamara. Wouldn't that be a neat explanation for the 'withered arm' myth, as
well?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Never say never, Sandra. Henry might have had - for instance - fingernail fungus. Sometimes the fingernail even comes off! It can be pretty traumatic, you know!
;)
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sandra wrote: "At least Richard had proved himself in battle, and had the scars to prove it. I'll bet Henry's little pinkie (or any other part of him) was never so much as grazed." Never say never, Sandra. Henry might have had - for instance - fingernail fungus. Sometimes the fingernail even comes off! It can be pretty traumatic, you know! ;) Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Whoever used the words, needs to look up the definition. That is a terrible thing&&.and androgynous!
Pamela Bain| President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712
TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900
www.bmbi.com
7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Gilda
Felt
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] RE: Facial Reconstruction
That was my first thought when I read it, that, going by the rest of the statement, he must have meant androgynous.
Gilda
On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:38 AM, pansydobersby wrote:
Mind you, I think the 'hermaphrodite' bit might be a language barrier thing - could it be he meant simply some androgynous characteristics?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I imagine his smile transforming his face. From solemn into the glee of being alive. I cannot imagine having the many losses he faced, and how he managed to carry on, deaths, treachery, and finally death in battle. Now, poor soul, he is being fought over by special interests !
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of SandraMachin
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Agreed Pamela. A man who is beautiful is just a man who is beautiful. Full stop. And in my opinion, Richard was beautiful. And as red-blooded as the next man. In spite of his physical problems, there was something about his face and general appearance that beguiled. Something about him that beguiled. If this weren't so, we wouldn't all be his loyal supporters now, across the centuries. His smile must have been something to behold. I would certainly have liked to see it. So, no more iffy words to describe him. From now on they are strictly verboten.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:46 PM
To:
Subject: RE: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Whoever used the words, needs to look up the definition. That is a terrible thing&&.and androgynous!
Pamela Bain| President
Bain Medina Bain, Inc.
Engineers & Surveyors
HUB, SBE, WBE, TxDOT Pre-Certified Firm
TBPE Registered Firm Engineering Number: F-1712
TBPLS Firm Surveying Number: 10020900
www.bmbi.com
7073 San Pedro Ave., San Antonio, TX 78216
210.494.7223 ext. 223
pbain@...
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of Gilda Felt
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:43 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
That was my first thought when I read it, that, going by the rest of the statement, he must have meant androgynous.
Gilda
On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:38 AM, pansydobersby wrote:
Mind you, I think the 'hermaphrodite' bit might be a language barrier thing - could it be he meant simply some androgynous characteristics?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hear Hear Sandra.Loyaulte me Lie.
Christine
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I fear the Hermaphrodite is my fault. I did not find a better translation for the German word Zwitter.
Mr. Castorf meant probably androgyn. Zwitter is more a word used in zoology for instance for snails,
but it is strange to use it for a human being anyway.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
The picture you paint of Richard with your words is a pleasure for me to read.
It is just how I feel that he was like. So I hope you did not mind me quoting Mr. C.
I just thought it was fun.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
My sigh wasn't directed toward you...we are (and were) in agreement. But I apologize, as I'm reminded to be more careful in how I word my posts...
No missing fingers, just bad drawing.
In fact, had there been a severed finger (a "member"), especially the little finger, Richard's enemies would have had the proverbial "field day" with this.
As in the 1385 Wycliffe Bible, 2 Chronicles X, 10: "...My le[a]st finger shalbe thicker than my father's loynes....") And then as recently as with J.R.R. Tolkien's LotR, the loss of *any* finger may be likened to a more profound and, er, private loss.
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:40 AM, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Judy,
I just wanted to make it clear how absurd the idea of the missing fingers is.Sorry I bored you!
As a matter of fact, it bores me too. I hope Philippa's reassurance will be excepted at last.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hi, Eva,
My
sigh wasn't directed toward you...we are (and were) in agreement. But I
apologize, as I'm reminded to be more careful in how I word my posts...
No
missing fingers, just bad drawing.
In
fact, had there been a severed finger (a "member"), especially the little
finger, Richard's enemies would have had the proverbial "field day" with this.
As
in the 1385 Wycliffe Bible, 2 Chronicles X, 10: "...My le[a]st finger shalbe
thicker than my father's loynes....") And then as recently as with J.R.R.
Tolkien's LotR, the loss of *any* finger may be likened to a more profound
and, er, private loss.
Judy
Loyaulte me
lie
On Monday, March 3, 2014 7:40 AM,
"eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Judy,
I just wanted to make it clear how absurd the idea of
the missing fingers is.Sorry I bored you!
As a matter of fact, it
bores me too. I hope Philippa's reassurance will be excepted at last.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Actually, at least one of Richard's enemies, Colyingbourne, was implying that Richard was not a whole man. The whole pont of the Cat-Rat-Dog rhyme was to insult Richard's manhood by calling him a castrated boar; that is, a hog. As for the finger, if memory serves, I believe that a doctor on this list some months ago mentioned evidence showing that Richard was indeed missing a part of his finger, the same finger so shown in the NPG painting. Tamara
Re: Facial Reconstruction
A slim fine boned king, rather than an old queen then?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 5:32:07 PM
Indeed..this is how rumours can start,,.the term used by the archaeologists was 'gracile' meaning Richard was slim....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
To this day, the Swedish verb 'hugga' means 'to cut'.
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sandra, the old meaning of the word 'hog' was indeed a castrated male pig. The origin of the Old English word is probably an old verb that refers to cutting things off (ouch!) with the same roots as the verb 'hew'. To this day, the Swedish verb 'hugga' means 'to cut'. Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
The "Doctor" was Claire, who's no more an MD than me. It was part of a stream of schadenfreude ("Poor Richard - it's a wonder he got out of bed in the morning" type stuff). Thus are rumours perpetrated. Annette, Philippa, et al. say it's nonsense. I tend to believe *them*.
Judy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
A slim fine boned king, rather than an old queen then?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 5:32:07 PM
Indeed..this is how rumours can start,,.the term used by the archaeologists was 'gracile' meaning Richard was slim....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It looks to be a technical term for archaeologists: I heard it used in reference to a dinosaur on a program shown on the Nature Channel ("Bizarre Dinosaurs" - it's a fun documentary, and I have it on repeat recording on my DVR because I just enjoy the narration so much).
Maria ejbronte@...
Indeed..this is how rumours can start,,.the term used by the archaeologists was 'gracile' meaning Richard was slim....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short, scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria ejbronte@...
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
My ex-boyfriend, too: just a couple of inches taller than my five feet, and under 110 pounds. He had whipcord muscles, could make an old, three-speed bicycle race; was extremely fast; and had an amazing appetite.
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short,
scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain
<pbain@...> wrote:
One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It was someone who, if memory serves, is a doctor with a qualification in radiology, but who gave up speaking on-list and prefers to remain anonymous because she was afraid of being bullied.
Tamara
Re: Facial Reconstruction
The second-listed meaning for the Macmillan entry, the first one listed, is "a male pig whose sex organs have been removed". [The first meaning is a human who eats too much!]
I doubted it at first,too - until Claire showed me the reference.
Tamara
Re: Facial Reconstruction
(My great-grandparents on my mother's side came from Småland in Sweden and Trondheim in Norway.)
Tamara
Re: Facial Reconstruction
1British a male pig whose sex organs have been removedThesaurus entry for this meaning of hog
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 0:36
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Wonderful! Completely off the subject, I am reading a quartet of books by Robert Wilson, set in Seville, and I am enchanted. My next trip to Europe has to include time in España! On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote: My ex-boyfriend, too: just a couple of inches taller than my five feet, and under 110 pounds. He had whipcord muscles, could make an old, three-speed bicycle race; was extremely fast; and had an amazing appetite.
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short, scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria ejbronte@... On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote: One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that! On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote: Wiry.......I like that! Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
From: christineholmes651@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 9:25 AM To: Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
We on this forum have been through all this missing finger bit on the NPG portrait before. If you look carefully there is no missing finger the tip is covered by the ring. Also the hands are badly painted, portrait painting was in it early period in these times. Its a pity Leonardo didn't paint it. he was born the same year as Richard.
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
This is more of a political point than anything else, but why is to describe someone as feminine an insult? Society has a fear of the feminine. It is why gay men can be so feared and hated. Why women are expected to be stick thin and girlish. It is a form of social control.
People are made by God, or nature, as is your preference, in all shapes and sizes, some large, some small, some straight, some gay, some males with feminine characteristics, some females with male characteristics, and some somewhere in between.
It is all part of life's rich pattern, and all have special gifts to bring to society.
So Richard was a straight man with a feminine build.
So what.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 11:27:18 AM
I wonder if these 'wiry' men also have a gritty determination/stubbornness that gives them an added strength...Re Maria's comment that the gentleman she knew had a healthy appetite...I reckon this is because these wiry chap have hollow legs....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 4, 2014, at 3:36 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
Off topic again - I've read some of those and I went to Seville (twice) before I did so. It is an amazingly beautiful city - don't go in the summer though you will die of the heat.
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 0:36
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Wonderful! Completely off the subject, I am reading a quartet of books by Robert Wilson, set in Seville, and I am enchanted. My next trip to Europe has to include time in España!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
My ex-boyfriend, too: just a couple of inches taller than my five feet, and under 110 pounds. He had whipcord muscles, could make an old, three-speed bicycle race; was extremely fast; and had an amazing appetite.
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short,
scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain
<pbain@...> wrote:
One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Speaking of Claire..has anyone on this forum given her my email address? I ask because I received an email from her last week in response to something I had posted on here. I cannot understand how she could access my email address as she is now a ex-member of this forum without someone forwarding it to her. If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologise but if I am correct I am still spitting feathers over it as it is bang out of order. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:02 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Speaking of Claire..has anyone on this forum given her my email address? I ask because I received an email from her last week in response to something I had posted on here. I cannot understand how she could access my email address as she is now a ex-member of this forum without someone forwarding it to her. If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologise but if I am correct I am still spitting feathers over it as it is bang out of order. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Enjoy!
Maria
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
Wonderful! Completely off the subject, I am reading a quartet of books by Robert Wilson, set in Seville, and I am enchanted. My next trip to Europe has to include time in España!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote:
My ex-boyfriend, too: just a couple of inches taller than my five feet, and under 110 pounds. He had whipcord muscles, could make an old, three-speed bicycle race; was extremely fast; and had an amazing appetite.
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short,
scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria
ejbronte@...
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain
<pbain@...> wrote:
One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that!
On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote:
Wiry.......I like that!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM
Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: [Richard III Society Forum Off topic Seville
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 12:03
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
I am in Texas, so heat we know. However, it is sapping for a tourist, walking from place to place. However, today it is freezing and wet. Texas can all four seasons in less than a week! On Mar 4, 2014, at 3:36 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote: Off topic again - I've read some of those and I went to Seville (twice) before I did so. It is an amazingly beautiful city - don't go in the summer though you will die of the heat. Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 0:36
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
Wonderful! Completely off the subject, I am reading a quartet of books by Robert Wilson, set in Seville, and I am enchanted. My next trip to Europe has to include time in España! On Mar 3, 2014, at 5:56 PM, "Maria Torres" <ejbronte@...> wrote: My ex-boyfriend, too: just a couple of inches taller than my five feet, and under 110 pounds. He had whipcord muscles, could make an old, three-speed bicycle race; was extremely fast; and had an amazing appetite.
Moving more toward Richard's time, don Alvaro de Luna, the most powerful man alive during the reign of Juan II of Castile (including Juan II himself), was, to paraphrase Townsend Miller (who based his description on one from a contemporary of don Alvaro), "short, scrawny, bald, but Jupiter with his thunderbolt".
In 1464, the same Bohemian crew who traveled to England, went on to Castile, where their very big, brawny wrestling champion was beaten by a tiny Castilian, who treated them all to a condolence drink after the bout.
Don't under-estimate the little guys!
Maria ejbronte@... On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote: One of my great uncles was a small man, sinewy, but he was one of the strongest people I have ever met. To look at him, it would be unexpected. I think Richard, would have been much like that! On Mar 3, 2014, at 4:41 PM, "Jessie Skinner" <janjovian@...> wrote: Wiry.......I like that! Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android From: cherryripe.eileenb@... <cherryripe.eileenb@...>; To: <>; Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 7:48:17 PM Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Liz
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 12:08
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
I didn't.....however on my iPad, before I reply, you address is shown. Sorry you two are at odds.
On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:02 AM, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Speaking of Claire..has anyone on this forum given her my email address? I ask because I received an email from her last week in response to something I had posted on here. I cannot understand how she could access my email address as she is now a ex-member of this forum without someone forwarding it to her. If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologise but if I am correct I am still spitting feathers over it as it is bang out of order. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
You are correct! But, it is sad&.. wouldn't you have loved to hear the private tete-tete Edward III, had with those closest to him! Or, what Princess Margaret said to Elizabeth II when she got a divorce, and all the rest!
Sorry, I have a new version of Outlook and cannot insert French symbols, appropriate for tete!
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:37 AM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Facial Reconstruction
This is totally off topic but bear with me, I've just been watching and reading about the Pistorius trial...and it struck me that no matter the outcome, the only living person that will ever know the truth of what happened that night is Pistorius himself.,.and he will probably take this to the grave with him. This reminds me of so much to do with Richard, so many mysteries, the boys, what was said to him that day outside the council chamber at the Tower which led to him, enraged having Hastings arrested and executed, what did Catesby know that he was shocked when the Stanley's did nothing to help or prevent his execution, why did EW make peace with Richard and so much more. This is because some stuff of monumental importance is simply never written down...it is spoken about in private and never written down and thus the truth dies over the years. I do admire the people that go on seeking the truth...but I suspect that some of it we will never know....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 16:24, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Oh yes..me...I would just have loved to have been a fly on the wall during those conversations, which must have surely taken place, between Cicely and Edward during the period of George's imprisonment, trial and execution.Did she beg, harangue, shout, wheedle, weep...how on earth would a mother handle this, and afterwards what could have been her relationship between her and Edward? This is what I mean...these matters are so private we can only guess ....how frustrating.....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I agree Eileen; and how she must have disliked EW for all the
troubles she'd brought to the family - Warwick was said to be her favourite
nephew too!
JAH's book is on its way to me too - how exciting!!!
H
On Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 16:24,
"cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
wrote:
Oh yes..me...I would just have loved to have been a fly on the wall during
those conversations, which must have surely taken place, between Cicely and
Edward during the period of George's imprisonment, trial and execution.
Did she beg, harangue, shout, wheedle, weep...how on earth would a mother
handle this, and afterwards what could have been her relationship between her
and Edward? This is what I mean...these matters are so private we can only
guess ....how frustrating.....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 16:46, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Absolutely Hilary....Re Warwick being a favourite nephew...what a madness it all was...Yorkists killing Yorkists...if only they had stood shoulder to shoulder nothing could have brought this bunch down...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
You wouldn't be able to hear a thing for all the buzzing going on....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 17:17, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Exactly Hilary...spot on...the way he treated Warwick...who could blame him for taking umbrage...and once he took umbrage..that was it! and then of course there was George.....rigged trial? No one to defend him...indeed you would have to be foolhardy to have tried. I've never much cared for Edward once he had passed his 'golden warrior' stage...which was quite early on....he then become, to my mind, very much a overweight plonker...but I'm not a historian...just an interested bystander...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent from my iPad
On 4 Mar 2014, at 12:02, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Speaking of Claire..has anyone on this forum given her my email address? I ask because I received an email from her last week in response to something I had posted on here. I cannot understand how she could access my email address as she is now a ex-member of this forum without someone forwarding it to her. If I am barking up the wrong tree I apologise but if I am correct I am still spitting feathers over it as it is bang out of order. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Mary
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent from my iPhone
On 4 Mar 2014, at 17:17, <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Exactly Hilary...spot on...the way he treated Warwick...who could blame him for taking umbrage...and once he took umbrage..that was it! and then of course there was George.....rigged trial? No one to defend him...indeed you would have to be foolhardy to have tried. I've never much cared for Edward once he had passed his 'golden warrior' stage...which was quite early on....he then become, to my mind, very much a overweight plonker...but I'm not a historian...just an interested bystander...Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
The little finger joint may have been lost in battle .The others may have been lost after Bosworth in order to get any rings he might have been wearing.Apologies if this has already been discussed. x
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Just because a man is slim does not mean that he is not strong.A lot of men when they are young have slightly delicate features and are slim.The withered arm could be several things, a sign or message conveying, with heard - arm ! or that his arm was shaking/trembling due to stress etc perhaps? It didn't necessarily have to be physically weak.
Kathryn x
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Have you seen the portrait of Richard at Westwood Manor.He definitely has a smile on his lips in that portrait and his eyebrows are a little thicker.His eyes are larger and light in colour a blue grey perhaps?
Kathryn x
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Tamara wrote :
"Actually, at least one of Richard's enemies, Colyingbourne, was implying that Richard was not a whole man. The whole pont of the Cat-Rat-Dog rhyme was to insult Richard's manhood by calling him a castrated boar; that is, a hog.As for the finger, if memory serves, I believe that a doctor on this list some months ago mentioned evidence showing that Richard was indeed missing a part of his finger, the same finger so shown in the NPG painting."
Carol responds:
Can you cite your source for the doctor's report? As for the NPG painting. you need to look at the underlying tracery rather than the painting itself to get some idea of the original that was being copied. The NPG, despite being the best likeness among the portraits of Richard's face (as compared with his skull) is very late, almost 100 years after his death. The artist's (rather inept) rendering of his hands is not at all authoritative. As for missing bones, finger bones are small and easily lost, and are among the first bones to be destroyed when a skeleton or fossil is dug up. The skull is also missing teeth, but some (those for which we can see the holes in the jaw) fell out posthumously. And, of course, the feet are also missing, but no one is saying that he was missing his feet in life! As no contemporary description mentions his hands, including descriptions by hostile sources such as Rous, we can be fairly certain that his hands were whole and normal.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Unless someone comes forth with unambiguous evidence of healing at the point of severance, there's only idle speculation, based on bad art.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:42 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote :
"Actually, at least one of Richard's enemies, Colyingbourne, was implying that Richard was not a whole man. The whole pont of the Cat-Rat-Dog rhyme was to insult Richard's manhood by calling him a castrated boar; that is, a hog.As for the finger, if memory serves, I believe that a doctor on this list some months ago mentioned evidence showing that Richard was indeed missing a part of his finger, the same finger so shown in the NPG painting."
Carol responds:
Can you cite your source for the doctor's report? As for the NPG painting. you need to look at the underlying tracery rather than the painting itself to get some idea of the original that was being copied. The NPG, despite being the best likeness among the portraits of Richard's face (as compared with his skull) is very late, almost 100 years after his death. The artist's (rather inept) rendering of his hands is not at all authoritative. As for missing bones, finger bones are small and easily lost, and are among the first bones to be destroyed when a skeleton or fossil is dug up. The skull is also missing teeth, but some (those for which we can see the holes in the jaw) fell out posthumously. And, of course, the feet are also missing, but no one is saying that he was missing his feet in life! As no contemporary description mentions his hands, including descriptions by hostile sources such as Rous, we can be fairly certain that his hands were whole and normal.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
The NPG, despite being the best likeness among the portraits of Richard's face (as compared with his skull) is very late, almost 100 years after his death. The artist's (rather inept) rendering of his hands is not at all authoritative.
Eva answers:
While I agree with what you say about the fingers, I must contradict you concerning the likeness of the
NPG portrait being the best. As you say the picture is much younger than the other two.And I would add, that the style of painting is not late fifteenth century. The argument, that this portrait should show the best likeness of Richard because it matched to the skull in the superimposition does not convince me.
1. There was no superimposition made with the RC portrait. As it was found out that the outlines of the RC
and NPG pictures match,it is probable that the skull would fit in as well.
2. The SOA painting is mirror-inverted. The superimposition should have been made with the mirror-inverted skull to prove how good it does fit in. Only a professional superimposition made that way could give
evidence if it really fits in worse than the NPG painting.
3. Even the positive superimposition test of the NPG painting is no guaranty for the best likeness. If you give
an exact line drawing to several different people and ask them to paint the person on the drawing, you will get
very different results. Not only the hands were inaptly drawn, but the face as well.
4. The NPG portrait was painted in Elisabeth I's time. IMO it was meant to show a person prematurely old,
troubled and weak, a person not fit to be king in comparison to the glorious Tudor Queen.
I am aware that this topic had been discussed before and some might think that all was already said
about it. So I beg your pardon, that I had to dive into it again.
I would recommend everybody to read the article on the portraits on the web side which is quite good.
Eva
---In , <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote :
Brava, Carol. The issue over Richard's "missing" finger(s) remains a non-issue.
Unless someone comes forth with unambiguous evidence of healing at the point of severance, there's only idle speculation, based on bad art.
Judy
Loyaulte me lie
On Saturday, March 8, 2014 10:42 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Tamara wrote :
"Actually, at least one of Richard's enemies, Colyingbourne, was implying that Richard was not a whole man. The whole pont of the Cat-Rat-Dog rhyme was to insult Richard's manhood by calling him a castrated boar; that is, a hog.As for the finger, if memory serves, I believe that a doctor on this list some months ago mentioned evidence showing that Richard was indeed missing a part of his finger, the same finger so shown in the NPG painting."
Carol responds:
Can you cite your source for the doctor's report? As for the NPG painting. you need to look at the underlying tracery rather than the painting itself to get some idea of the original that was being copied. The NPG, despite being the best likeness among the portraits of Richard's face (as compared with his skull) is very late, almost 100 years after his death. The artist's (rather inept) rendering of his hands is not at all authoritative. As for missing bones, finger bones are small and easily lost, and are among the first bones to be destroyed when a skeleton or fossil is dug up. The skull is also missing teeth, but some (those for which we can see the holes in the jaw) fell out posthumously. And, of course, the feet are also missing, but no one is saying that he was missing his feet in life! As no contemporary description mentions his hands, including descriptions by hostile sources such as Rous, we can be fairly certain that his hands were whole and normal.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Hi Eva, and everyone,
The little finger joint may have been lost in battle .The others may have been lost after Bosworth in order to get any rings he might have been wearing.Apologies if this has already been discussed."
Carol responds:
The excavation team thoroughly discussed his battle injuries. I'm quite sure that if anything were wrong with his hands or fingers (other than the normal loss of bones and teeth to time after 527 years in the ground), Jo ("He's a hunchback!") Appleby would have gleefully pointed it out to anyone who would listen.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Just because a man is slim does not mean that he is not strong.A lot of men when they are young have slightly delicate features and are slim.The withered arm could be several things, a sign or message conveying, with heard - arm ! or that his arm was shaking/trembling due to stress etc perhaps? It didn't necessarily have to be physically weak."
Carol responds:
The withered arm is a complete fabrication, first hinted at in Vergil, Henry VIII's official historian and fully developed in More's imaginary scene depicting the council meeting that led to the supposed framing of Hastings. (More claims that Richard accused Elizabeth Woodville of shrinking it by witchcraft but that everyone present knew it had been withered from birth--an outrageous falsehood as the Leicester team pointed out. (Well, "outrageous" is my word, but they noted that both his arms were perfectly normal.) The withered arm is just another symbolic indication of his supposed wickedness, physical deformities supposedly indicating spiritual deformity. There is no indication in contemporary descriptions that he shook or trembled. Mancini and Croyland give almost no details of the council meeting and neither says anything about weakness, trembling, or deformity. (Rous is the first to refer to Richard as weak, but he's referring to his small size and to battle, not the council meeting. And he, of course, mentions Richard's courage in battle despite his small size and supposed weakness. Von Poppelau mentions Richard's "delicate arms and legs" (and his "great heart"). But there is no basis in any contemporary account--or in the earliest of the paintings--for anything resembling a withered arm--or this new idea, suggested by Claire on this forum but mentioned nowhere else that I know of unless the virus of unsupported rumor has spread--that anything was wrong with his hands.
Okay. I've had enough of this topic and will drop it now. (Or try--I can't always hold to these resolutions!) But, please. We have enough to deal with countering the hunchback myth. Let's not add further deformities that not even Sir Thomas More (or Shakespeare, who added the limp) thought to attribute to Richard.
Carol (T)
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Have you seen the portrait of Richard at Westwood Manor.He definitely has a smile on his lips in that portrait and his eyebrows are a little thicker.His eyes are larger and light in colour a blue grey perhaps?"
Carol responds:
Note the date, ca. 1660. This painting (new to me; thanks for pointing it out) seems to have no connection with the portraits that can be traced to the original painted in life. Note how aged the face looks (blame More and Shakespeare for that). To me, it resembles a playing card. The only thing the artist got right was the absence of facial hair.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 9, 2014, at 2:51 PM, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Carol,I do so agree to your post, especially the last sentence!
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Carol,I do so agree to your post, especially the last sentence!"
Carol responds:
Thanks, but which one? You didn't quote a post, or at least, it didn't show up in your message. And we currently have three Carols, a Carole, and a Coral posting, so you may not have meant me at all. I'm guessing that you did mean me, though, because of the particular thread.
Carol (T)
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sorry, i did not quote. That was the sentence I meant:
"Let's not add further deformities that not even Sir Thomas More (or Shakespeare, who added the limp) thought to attribute to Richard" in message 97
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Hi Carol,
"Sorry, i did not quote. That was the sentence I meant: 'Let's not add further deformities that not even Sir Thomas More (or Shakespeare, who added the limp) thought to attribute to Richard' in message 97"
Carol responds:
Thanks, Eva. Too bad Yahoo doesn't automatically quote messages, which makes it very hard to follow threads unless the poster quotes the message he or she is responding to.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Yes, the missing little finger tip is covered by the ring. The missing tips of the first & second fingers are hidden by being tucked into the doublet. Try doing this yourself with a jacket, you will find it is not a very natural thing to do, in fact you may need the assistance of the other hand to achieve it..
But now the mystery is cleared up by the skeleton. The tips of the first, second & little fingers are missing on the right hand. Compare the left, a graceful hand, as the right would have been too, before Barnet. Yet he made so little of it that he was leading into battle again in less than three weeks, at Tewkesbury. (But was vain enough to go to this trouble to disguise it - that's our Richard). Jennie.
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor, the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 14:19, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor, the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Ultimately though if I have been told by those who were there at the dig and examination that these little digits can get so easily lost in the grave which is what they believe has happened in this case then I will take their word for it. Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Yes, the missing little finger tip is covered by the ring. The missing tips of the first & second fingers are hidden by being tucked into the doublet. Try doing this yourself with a jacket, you will find it is not a very natural thing to do, in fact you may need the assistance of the other hand to achieve it..
But now the mystery is cleared up by the skeleton. The tips of the first, second & little fingers are missing on the right hand. Compare the left, a graceful hand, as the right would have been too, before Barnet. Yet he made so little of it that he was leading into battle again in less than three weeks, at Tewkesbury. (But was vain enough to go to this trouble to disguise it - that's our Richard). "
Carol responds:
Unless you can find an authority to support your position, I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. If anything were wrong with Richard's hands, Rous would have mentioned it and the Tudors would have added it to their catalogue of exaggerated (and imagined) deformities.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"I'm still convinced it was only the little finger of his right hand. I know, I know, no matter what you tell some people, or how often, they never learn. I'm talking about me here, not anyone else, I hasten to add." Carol responds:
It seems that we all remain convinced of our original positions. May I politely request that unless anyone has any new evidence to present, we drop this topic? There's no point in going around and around repeating the same arguments and opinions. Then again, that point could be made about certain other emotionally charged topics as well. Sigh.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Judy Loyaulte me lie
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:50 AM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Sandra wrote :
"I'm still convinced it was only the little finger of his right hand. I know, I know, no matter what you tell some people, or how often, they never learn. I'm talking about me here, not anyone else, I hasten to add." Carol responds:
It seems that we all remain convinced of our original positions. May I politely request that unless anyone has any new evidence to present, we drop this topic? There's no point in going around and around repeating the same arguments and opinions. Then again, that point could be made about certain other emotionally charged topics as well. Sigh.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Missing a tip of his little finger *would* be interesting, though, because of the 'withered arm' myth. Tudor propaganda often has a tendency to take a tiny morsel of truth and twist it around into something unrecognisable and ridiculous. How did the story go - that Richard had a withered arm and he blamed Woodville witchcraft for it?
Well, let's imagine for a moment that Richard HAD lost a fingertip at Barnet: a truncated finger easily twists into a 'withered arm'. And let's not forget that Warwick's faction accused the Woodvilles of witchcraft: ergo, Woodville witchcraft was to blame that the battle of Barnet even took place; ergo, Woodville witchcraft would have been to blame for Richard's missing fingertip.
Let's not forget, also, that Tudor propaganda often seems to conflate Clarence's actions as a wannabe usurper with Richard's actions. In his attainder, Clarence was accused of spreading the rumour that Edward was a bastard, but later sources have Richard coming up with that claim. Likewise, Clarence was also accused of spreading the rumour that 'the king dealt by necromancy' (and no doubt the queen was implicated, too). Lots of witchcraft accusations flying around - so there *is* a source for them, even if the source isn't Richard.
Of course, it doesn't really matter either way, but I like to consider possible sources for Tudor claims - however ridiculous the claims - instead of dismissing them outright. And I've never come across any contemporary sources that consider battle scars to be deformities, as such, so it would be no wonder that contemporary people didn't make much of the injury (if there was one).
I do hope that amidst all their other research someone at the University of Leicester would take a moment to consider whether any of the fingertips had been cut (and healed) in life or whether the bones had just gone missing. It's not a hugely significant thing, but still. Establishing the truth about such details wouldn't validate Tudor propaganda - it would just make it easier to track the possible sources of their claims.
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sandra wrote :
"I'm still convinced it was only the little finger of his right hand. I
know, I know, no matter what you tell some people, or how often, they
never learn. I'm talking about me here, not anyone else, I hasten to
add."
Carol responds:
It seems that we all remain convinced of
our original positions. May I politely request that unless anyone has any new
evidence to present, we drop this topic? There's no point in going around and
around repeating the same arguments and opinions. Then again, that point could
be made about certain other emotionally charged topics as well.
Sigh.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Speaking of deformities which I understand to the medieval mind might suggest that person also had an evil streak....would the fact that HT had a cast in his eye...sorry I don't really know how better to describe it...would that have been considered in the same way as a hunchback or withered arm...because HT seems to have git away with it...I'm not even sure it this was even true...coupling deformity with evilness,,,,anyway...perhaps it was Shakespeare with his dramatic licence that makes us think this...but I digress..my question is what would have HTs contemporaries have thought about his eye condition if anything...they must have been very familiar with stuff that would make some of us cringe today....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
As for propaganda points and the Tudors, well - it's like expecting logic from schoolyard bullies. I remember we had some mean bullies at my school when I was a teenager. One of the head bullies was a very chubby boy, but that didn't stop him from bullying others for being fat. Logic didn't enter into it. The only difference was that the bully was in a position to bully; the others weren't in a position to say anything back, because they were afraid of him and his cronies.
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hilary, I both agree and disagree. I do agree that Richard's appearance doesn't matter. Personally, I wouldn't care if Richard were missing a nose, an ear, an arm and a leg, because I'm interested in him no matter what his physical imperfections. (Though I suppose poor Richard himself would have minded missing a nose, an ear, an arm and a leg... but I digress.) I don't know if I'm in the minority but Richard's scoliosis actually makes me *more* fond of him, and if he had any other physical imperfections, they would only make me feel more protective of him - not less.
Eva answers:
Maybe it seems superficial to you, but for me Richard's appearance matters a lot. Not that I want him to be perfect or otherwise want to try to find as many physical imperfections as possible. That is not what I mean.
But a man's face is important, and I think should be treated with respect. It is as much a part of him as his character. And that respect -to get back to the start of this topic- IMO is missing in the facial recreation. And,
even worse on the new Bulletin there is a new bust advertised , commissioned by the Society that makes
my blood boil. It is simply an insult to Richard. I don't understand how they can be so careless in visual
matters concerning Richard,it is as if everyone can distort his image at will and nobody seems to care.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It reminds me of someone, but not sure who exactly.
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Eva...I do have to agree with you about the new bust advertised on the back page of the Bulletin....It is absolutely dire...Dire and I'm sorry...tacky....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Oh God..,I should have said I was replying to Pansy then....not Sandra ....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On the other hand, the side view on page 38 looks a bit like Peter Steele.
Pansy
P.S. I don't mean to denigrate the work of Steve Leadley, but those photos doesn't even look like the facial reconstruction, let alone the portraits. Perhaps the bust looks nicer in person?
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On the other hand, the side view on page 38 looks a bit like Peter Steele.
Pansy
P.S. I don't mean to denigrate the work of Steve Leadley, but those photos doesn't even look like the facial reconstruction, let alone the portraits. Perhaps the bust looks nicer in person?
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor, the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. EileenEva answers:
I agree with you in this. If Richard had fingers missing on his right hand or was writing with his left hand,
using a quill, he never could have had such a neat hand-writing. The letter to Cecily is beautifully written.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 20:19, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Eileen wrote.
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor, the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. EileenEva answers:
I agree with you in this. If Richard had fingers missing on his right hand or was writing with his left hand,
using a quill, he never could have had such a neat hand-writing. The letter to Cecily is beautifully written.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 11, 2014, at 4:46 PM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
This is out of order (I mean email order!) so not addressed to anyone in particular; we are talking about paintings of paintings, or remembrances of originals re-produced in a particular 16th century style. If you look at paintings of Edward then
you can't see his thumb - does that mean he didn't have a thumb and if we opened his coffin (again) we'd find a load of bones missing which might confirm that assumption? How many pictures have we looked at to examine the fingers on the hands? The Holbeinart
guy spent ages interpreting how Richard was twisting his rings and what fingers they were on and what it meant etc, etc. Did Nelson have a mole on his back? And we know George Washington struggled with his false teeth. What colour waistcoat did Disraeli wear
on Thursdays (as one student asked me)? Does it honestly matter folks?
What matters is a person's legacy and indeed how that may have been distorted. Sorry, won't say any more. That is until we get on to George the Short! :) H
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 20:19, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Eileen wrote.
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor,
the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. Eileen
Eva answers:
I agree with you in this. If Richard had fingers missing on his right hand or was writing with his left hand,
using a quill, he never could have had such a neat hand-writing. The letter to Cecily is beautifully written.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 22:24, "cherryripe.eileenb@..." <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Lol Hilary..you mean "false, fleeting, teeny perjur'd Clarence".....aka Little Legs among his friends....Eileen
Re: Facial Reconstruction
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 21:45
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Facial Reconstruction
> Did Nelson have a mole on his back?
Apropos of nothing at all, that's given me a wonderful 'Wind in the Willows' type image of a seafaring mole...
Jonathan
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 21:45
Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
This is out of order (I mean email order!) so not addressed to anyone in particular; we are talking about paintings of paintings, or remembrances of originals re-produced in a particular 16th century style. If you look at paintings of Edward then you can't see his thumb - does that mean he didn't have a thumb and if we opened his coffin (again) we'd find a load of bones missing which might confirm that assumption? How many pictures have we looked at to examine the fingers on the hands? The Holbeinart guy spent ages interpreting how Richard was twisting his rings and what fingers they were on and what it meant etc, etc. Did Nelson have a mole on his back? And we know George Washington struggled with his false teeth. What colour waistcoat did Disraeli wear on Thursdays (as one student asked me)? Does it honestly matter folks? What matters is a person's legacy and indeed how that may have been distorted. Sorry, won't say any more. That is until we get on to George the Short! :) H
On Tuesday, 11 March 2014, 20:19, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Eileen wrote.
I remain unconvinced. Presuming he was right handed, and the alleged missing fingers are from his right hand, his handwriting from his surviving letters, the earliest pre Barnet 1471, dated 24th June 1469 show no difference to those written to his Chancellor, the Mayor and Aldermen of York, King Louis of France in 1483. There is a still later one to his mother. EileenEva answers:
I agree with you in this. If Richard had fingers missing on his right hand or was writing with his left hand,
using a quill, he never could have had such a neat hand-writing. The letter to Cecily is beautifully written.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
That is until we get on to George the Short! :)
Eva answers
Do you mean the older brother of above average Richard?
What if Jehan de Wavrin did guess the ages wrong? It is really challenging to be a Ricardian. After all
the novels about the dwarfish Richard and the nearly as tall as Edward George, must I now adapt
to the contrary?
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Wednesday, 12 March 2014, 13:58, "eva.pitter@..." <eva.pitter@...> wrote:
Hilary wrote,
That is until we get on to George the Short! :)
Eva answers
Do you mean the older brother of above average Richard?
What if Jehan de Wavrin did guess the ages wrong? It is really challenging to be a Ricardian. After all
the novels about the dwarfish Richard and the nearly as tall as Edward George, must I now adapt
to the contrary?
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Eva...I do have to agree with you about the new bust advertised on the back page of the Bulletin....It is absolutely dire...Dire and I'm sorry...tacky....Eileen"
Carol responds:
The new Bulletin is out? Here in the States, we always get ours late, so I have no idea what this new bust looks like. Can anyone link to a photo of it? (By the way, I'm of the school that believes looks are important whether we like it or not. Back in the 1960s, the televised debates between Kennedy, who looked young, fresh, and handsome, and Nixon, who looked middle-aged, haggard, and in need of a shave, partially determined the election, which would have been closer (based on polls before and after the debates) had those debates not been televised. And Richard, as we know or should know, has been depicted not only as hunchbacked and deformed but as old--I mean seventy or eighty years old, not middle-aged--if you look at portraits from, say the eighteenth century. (Old equals wicked; young equals beautiful and innocent in propaganda and fairy tales. Just look at Cinderella, the babes in the wood and their wicked uncle, wicked witches. "Only bad witches are ugly," as Glinda says in Hollywood's version of "The Wizard of Oz." And I'm sure everyone here has read statements that say the curved skeleton, actually showing scoliosis, "proves" that Richard was a hunchback and that Tudor propaganda about his actions and character "probably" wasn't far off the mark.
Sad as it seems, what he really looked like and the degree to which his looks (and age and disability) were distorted matters just as much as distortions of his character. If we can prove that he didn't *look* the way he's been depicted, we're on our way to proving that he didn't *act* that way, either. But there is no, I repeat, no reference in any contemporary or near contemporary source that Vergil and More could have distorted into a withered arm. They wanted to make Richard's charges against the queen baseless, so they changed charges of treason to charges of witchcraft, and the withered arm was born.
Here is what Vergil actually says:
"Richard duke of Glocestre, who thowght of nothing but tyranny and crueltie, spak unto them in this sort: My lords, I have procuryd you all to be caulyd hyther this day for that onely cause that I might shew unto you in what great danger of death I stand; for by the speace of a few days by past nether nyght nor day can I rest, drynk, not eat, wherfor my blood by lyttle and lyttle decreaseth, my force fayleth, my breath shorteneth, and all the partes of my body do above measure, as you se (and with that he shewyd them his arme), faule away; which mischief veryly procedeth in me from that sorceres Elyzabeth the quene, who with hir witchcraft hath so enchantyd me that by thanoyance thereof I am dissolvyd.' "
In Vergil, the arm is held up as evidence that all the parts of Richard's body are falling away (in his version, Hastings says that the queen deserves to be punished and put to shame if it appears that she has done Richard any harm, but the implication is clearly that she hasn't done anything). It's More who takes this story and makes the withered arm *real,* claiming that he was born that way. Until these two stories show up, both invented almost from whole cloth (Vergil's relies on earlier charges of witchcraft against EW and on the punishment given to Elizabeth Lambert ("Mistress Shore" in More's account), no source refers in any way to Richard's hands or arms. And most of the portraits, including NPG, *postdate* these stories and cannot be regarded as their source. In any case, the only portrait More or Vergil would have seen is the uglified Royal Collection portrait, in which some fingers are in shadow but there's no hint of disfigurement in the hands. (The raised shoulder, remember, was added later, as were the alterations to the face.) I don't see how either of them could have gotten the idea of a withered arm from that portrait. (More clearly got it from Vergil, taking the ball and running with it.)
So much for my hopes of dropping the subject, but at least I presented new evidence!
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"I often think it would be interesting if we could imagine our own Richard, and then convey the image to a printer. Just how similar an idea of him do we all have? Or are we poles apart? And how would we ever find out which of us were closest to the mark? We are all devoted to him in one way or another, but what do we see' in our mind's eye? Oh dear, this is going to keep me awake tonight..."
Carol responds:
Shall we give it a try? Here's how I see him in 1485: A handsome young man of 32 with shoulder-length medium or light brown hair and blue-gray eyes, rather sad and careworn since the deaths of his wife and son and perhaps a little thinner than a few years earlier. His face is expressive, capable of great energy and determination, of sweetness and charm, of anger at betrayal, of joy and elation (imagine him if he had won Bosworth!) If one shoulder is higher than the other, it's barely noticeable or not noticeable at all thanks to the skill of his tailor and armor maker. He would be a little shorter than 5 feet 8, perhaps as short as 5 feet 4 but certainly not the four foot eight dwarf that Jo Appleby makes him, slender and seemingly delicate but actually wiry and strong (Lin Foxhall, one of the archaeologists, confirmed that the was "strong and active," belying Rous's depiction of him as physically weak). His hands would have been the white, graceful hands of a high-ranking lord or noble, again, stronger than they looked. (Even on campaign, they would have been gloved and protected from the sun.) But it's the face, the sad, beautiful face, that would catch my heart and break it if I saw him in the flesh.
Do you see him differently, Sandra? If so, what's different in your view? (Anyone else want to join in? We don't need to argue, just present our own Richard, which no one can take away from us.)
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Carol,
You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 1:57:33 AM
Eileen wrote :
"Eva...I do have to agree with you about the new bust advertised on the back page of the Bulletin....It is absolutely dire...Dire and I'm sorry...tacky....Eileen"
Carol responds:
The new Bulletin is out? Here in the States, we always get ours late, so I have no idea what this new bust looks like. Can anyone link to a photo of it? (By the way, I'm of the school that believes looks are important whether we like it or not. Back in the 1960s, the televised debates between Kennedy, who looked young, fresh, and handsome, and Nixon, who looked middle-aged, haggard, and in need of a shave, partially determined the election, which would have been closer (based on polls before and after the debates) had those debates not been televised. And Richard, as we know or should know, has been depicted not only as hunchbacked and deformed but as old--I mean seventy or eighty years old, not middle-aged--if you look at portraits from, say the eighteenth century. (Old equals wicked; young equals beautiful and innocent in propaganda and fairy tales. Just look at Cinderella, the babes in the wood and their wicked uncle, wicked witches. "Only bad witches are ugly," as Glinda says in Hollywood's version of "The Wizard of Oz." And I'm sure everyone here has read statements that say the curved skeleton, actually showing scoliosis, "proves" that Richard was a hunchback and that Tudor propaganda about his actions and character "probably" wasn't far off the mark.
Sad as it seems, what he really looked like and the degree to which his looks (and age and disability) were distorted matters just as much as distortions of his character. If we can prove that he didn't *look* the way he's been depicted, we're on our way to proving that he didn't *act* that way, either. But there is no, I repeat, no reference in any contemporary or near contemporary source that Vergil and More could have distorted into a withered arm. They wanted to make Richard's charges against the queen baseless, so they changed charges of treason to charges of witchcraft, and the withered arm was born.
Here is what Vergil actually says:
"Richard duke of Glocestre, who thowght of nothing but tyranny and crueltie, spak unto them in this sort: My lords, I have procuryd you all to be caulyd hyther this day for that onely cause that I might shew unto you in what great danger of death I stand; for by the speace of a few days by past nether nyght nor day can I rest, drynk, not eat, wherfor my blood by lyttle and lyttle decreaseth, my force fayleth, my breath shorteneth, and all the partes of my body do above measure, as you se (and with that he shewyd them his arme), faule away; which mischief veryly procedeth in me from that sorceres Elyzabeth the quene, who with hir witchcraft hath so enchantyd me that by thanoyance thereof I am dissolvyd.' "
In Vergil, the arm is held up as evidence that all the parts of Richard's body are falling away (in his version, Hastings says that the queen deserves to be punished and put to shame if it appears that she has done Richard any harm, but the implication is clearly that she hasn't done anything). It's More who takes this story and makes the withered arm *real,* claiming that he was born that way. Until these two stories show up, both invented almost from whole cloth (Vergil's relies on earlier charges of witchcraft against EW and on the punishment given to Elizabeth Lambert ("Mistress Shore" in More's account), no source refers in any way to Richard's hands or arms. And most of the portraits, including NPG, *postdate* these stories and cannot be regarded as their source. In any case, the only portrait More or Vergil would have seen is the uglified Royal Collection portrait, in which some fingers are in shadow but there's no hint of disfigurement in the hands. (The raised shoulder, remember, was added later, as were the alterations to the face.) I don't see how either of them could have gotten the idea of a withered arm from that portrait. (More clearly got it from Vergil, taking the ball and running with it.)
So much for my hopes of dropping the subject, but at least I presented new evidence!
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Well, Carol, sorry for a rather lengthy response. My Richard would be very similar to yours, with the addition (I feel) of an air of regret. Not for anything he had done voluntarily, but for the things he had no choice but to do. By this I mean taking the throne, and all that ensued. I don't think he wanted to be king. He believed in and intended to see that Edward V succeeded his father, then it all went pear-shaped and events were forced upon Richard that ruined his life and finally robbed him of it. But still he followed his star. The rules were there, and he obeyed them. It was in his make-up and religious beliefs so to do. He did what he believed was right, and faced up to all the rotten, inevitable and deeply unfair consequences. This steeliness in Richard's character would have been evident in everything about him, and for all his humour, charm and approachability, those with him would have sensed it. He was strong, a great leader, and a just man who was loved and respected by those who really knew him, and he was such a loss that for the next century we had to endure the grimness of the Tudors. And yet he so very nearly succeeded in emerging the ultimate victor. It was so unbelievably close. A few more yards at Bosworth, and he'd have plucked Henry Tudor as surely as he plucked the gigantic Sir John Cheyne. How we wish.
My Richard had buckets of charisma, and was unbelievably attractive, both in character and appearance, with almost fluffy, dark-chestnut hair to his shoulders, a beautiful face, pale complexion and arresting grey eyes. Slight, yes, but strong and deceptively graceful. Nothing remotely clumsy about him. His physical imperfections would (a) not have mattered, (b) be particularly noticed. Even if he was small (compared with Edward, ifpossiblynot with George) he must have been rivetingly impressive. Put the crown upon his head, and he was magnificent. His smile, I am convinced, would have been like the sun on a rainy day. Men willingly gave their lives for him, and womeneven his opponentswould have been drawn to him. Such women would not like it, or admit it openly, but they would not be able to deny it to themselves. If only he wasn't York, they might think.
In private, when he no longer had Anne or his son, he must have had terrible moments of loneliness and self-doubt. Had he done the right thing after all? Were his enemies right to condemn him? Was God really on his side? These sad times would have been for himself alone, and must have been crushing to his otherwise indomitable spirit, but he would never reveal it to others, not even his closest friends. He needed and possessed those devoted friends, men and women who would be at his side no matter what. Not only were they bound to him, but he was bound to them. It was an even balance that never tipped in either direction. They supported him as their king and their friend, and he must have found strength from them. But some only posed as his friends, and were Judas to him. Buckingham, Hastings, the Stanleys and others. Such betrayal must have cut Richard to the soul, because he would never betray anyone. He was honest, and we, today, remain bound to him because of it. If he took revenge on the likes of Buckingham and Hastings, they deserved it. He was not a man to execute the innocent. As it was, he didn't do enough head-lopping!
So, my Richard is someone very special indeed, outstanding in every respect, even if his nature left him unable to control his destiny. Events were thrust upon him by the shoddiness of others, especially at Bosworth, where the contemptible won the day. But Edward IV failed him most of all. That man relied on his youngest brother, but was either too dim to see what would happen, or too selfish and cowardly to fess up. Edward killed Richard as surely as did Henry Tudor. I have no respect at all for the self-indulgent slug that the first Yorkist king became. Because of him, we lost that dazzling Plantagenet, Richard III, who still arouses intense emotion. The traditionalists are not very vocal these days, because the intense emotion comes from Richard's multitude of modern supporters.
Does all this over-romanticise him? Well, my view is not unbiased, of course, but it will take quite something to shake me from it. As for that pesky little finger. Part of it has to be missing, because it's missing in my book! Too late to go back to the printers now. So if they suddenly find that bone at Greyfriars, I'll tear my hair out! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: justcarol67@... Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:22 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sandra wrote :
"I often think it would be interesting if we could
imagine our own Richard, and then convey the image to a printer. Just how
similar an idea of him do we all have? Or are we poles apart? And how would we
ever find out which of us were closest to the mark? We are all devoted to
him in one way or another, but what do we see' in our mind's eye? Oh dear, this
is going to keep me awake tonight..."
Carol responds:
Shall we
give it a try? Here's how I see him in 1485: A handsome young man of 32 with
shoulder-length medium or light brown hair and blue-gray eyes, rather sad and
careworn since the deaths of his wife and son and perhaps a little thinner than
a few years earlier. His face is expressive, capable of great energy and
determination, of sweetness and charm, of anger at betrayal, of joy and elation
(imagine him if he had won Bosworth!) If one shoulder is higher than the other,
it's barely noticeable or not noticeable at all thanks to the skill of his
tailor and armor maker. He would be a little shorter than 5 feet 8, perhaps as
short as 5 feet 4 but certainly not the four foot eight dwarf that Jo Appleby
makes him, slender and seemingly delicate but actually wiry and strong (Lin
Foxhall, one of the archaeologists, confirmed that the was "strong and active,"
belying Rous's depiction of him as physically weak). His hands would have been
the white, graceful hands of a high-ranking lord or noble, again, stronger than
they looked. (Even on campaign, they would have been gloved and protected from
the sun.) But it's the face, the sad, beautiful face, that would catch my heart
and break it if I saw him in the flesh.
Do you see him differently,
Sandra? If so, what's different in your view? (Anyone else want to join in? We
don't need to argue, just present our own Richard, which no one can take away
from us.)
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:22 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:
Sandra wrote :
Carol responds:
Shall we give it a try? Here's how I see him in 1485: A handsome young man of 32 with shoulder-length medium or light brown hair and blue-gray eyes, rather sad and careworn since the deaths of his wife and son and perhaps a little thinner than a few years earlier. His face is expressive, capable of great energy and determination, of sweetness and charm, of anger at betrayal, of joy and elation (imagine him if he had won Bosworth!) If one shoulder is higher than the other, it's barely noticeable or not noticeable at all thanks to the skill of his tailor and armor maker. He would be a little shorter than 5 feet 8, perhaps as short as 5 feet 4 but certainly not the four foot eight dwarf that Jo Appleby makes him, slender and seemingly delicate but actually wiry and strong (Lin Foxhall, one of the archaeologists, confirmed that the was "strong and active," belying Rous's depiction of him as physically weak). His hands would have been the white, graceful hands of a high-ranking lord or noble, again, stronger than they looked. (Even on campaign, they would have been gloved and protected from the sun.) But it's the face, the sad, beautiful face, that would catch my heart and break it if I saw him in the flesh.
Do you see him differently, Sandra? If so, what's different in your view? (Anyone else want to join in? We don't need to argue, just present our own Richard, which no one can take away from us.)
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Jess wrote:
"You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"
Well, there's 'Babes in the Wood', but I have no idea how old the folktale actually is...
I've sometimes wondered about 'Babes in the Wood' being so geographically specific: Wayland Wood and Griston Hall in Norfolk. As far as I can tell from online sources, Griston Hall at Richard's time belonged to Sir William Knyvett... who was married to Buckingham's aunt and took part in Buckingham's rebellion. Creepy or what?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Yes, interesting isn't it? Was Richard's "image" based on a stereotype, or was He the original?
More research I think.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:04:38 PM
Jess wrote:
"You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"
Well, there's 'Babes in the Wood', but I have no idea how old the folktale actually is...
I've sometimes wondered about 'Babes in the Wood' being so geographically specific: Wayland Wood and Griston Hall in Norfolk. As far as I can tell from online sources, Griston Hall at Richard's time belonged to Sir William Knyvett... who was married to Buckingham's aunt and took part in Buckingham's rebellion. Creepy or what?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
On Thursday, 13 March 2014, 12:50, Jessie Skinner <janjovian@...> wrote:
Yes, interesting isn't it? Was Richard's "image" based on a stereotype, or was He the original?
More research I think. Jess Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 12:04:38 PM
Jess wrote:"You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"
Well, there's 'Babes in the Wood', but I have no idea how old the folktale actually is...
I've sometimes wondered about 'Babes in the Wood' being so geographically specific: Wayland Wood and Griston Hall in Norfolk. As far as I can tell from online sources, Griston Hall at Richard's time belonged to Sir William Knyvett... who was married to Buckingham's aunt and took part in Buckingham's rebellion. Creepy or what?
Pansy
Re: Facial Reconstruction
It is good to know that you and I have very similar ideas about "our" Richard. In the Oxford dictionary they write as explanation to one meaning of the word presence: Richard was not a big man, but his presence was overwhelming. I have always thought that they meant Richard III. You have given such beautiful descriptions
of him that there is little left for me to say. I just want to add that my Richard was a good lute player and
had a pleasant dark voice, he was interested in architecture and the arts of his time. His face was serious,
but there also was the slightest hint of a smile, that could suddenly turn into the most beautiful smile that
would light up his face.
Just now I feel my English is not good enough to do him justice.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I think that it is an old myth and has originally nothing to do with Richard. And there have been in history numerous wicked uncles before and after his time.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Hi Carol, Sandra and Mary(?)
It is good to know that you and I have very
similar ideas about "our" Richard. In the Oxford dictionary they write as
explanation to one meaning of the word presence: Richard was not a big man, but
his presence was overwhelming. I have always thought that they meant Richard
III. You have given such beautiful descriptions
of him that there is little
left for me to say. I just want to add that my Richard was a good lute player
and
had a pleasant dark voice, he was interested in architecture and the arts
of his time. His face was serious,
but there also was the slightest hint of a
smile, that could suddenly turn into the most beautiful smile that
would
light up his face.
Just now I feel my English is not good enough to do him
justice.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Carol,
You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"
Carol responds:
I've wondered about that, too. The story of the Babes in the Wood dates from 1590, so it could theoretically be based on Richard's "murder" of his nephews, but it doesn't closely resemble More's version of Richard as wicked uncle (on which Shakespeare's and other subsequent versions is based). If I recall correctly, at least one of Shakespeare's plays features another wicked uncle.
Come to think of it, Richard has his own ancestor, King John, who certainly imprisoned and may have murdered his nephew Arthur (a lovely teenager who besieged and kidnapped his own grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine) as a predecessor. I suspect that the stereotype dates to classical times or earlier, especially since younger brothers have probably competed against their nephews for a dead brother's throne or wealth since time immemorial. We could probably find examples of wicked uncles in myths or the Bible. Anyway, it seems likely to me that the stories about Richard fitted him into an existing stereotype rather than being the origin of the stereotype. Thoughts, anyone?
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I would have thought given "the folk process" whereby stories and songs are passed on orally, with little changes on each 're-telling, that "the wicked uncle" probably does go back to a European folk tale, but given that, the story of the "Babes in the Wood" is so precise in its location, that one can't help but wonder if it might be based on at least a grain of truth
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 4:56:39 PM
Jess wrote :
"Carol,
You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"
Carol responds:
I've wondered about that, too. The story of the Babes in the Wood dates from 1590, so it could theoretically be based on Richard's "murder" of his nephews, but it doesn't closely resemble More's version of Richard as wicked uncle (on which Shakespeare's and other subsequent versions is based). If I recall correctly, at least one of Shakespeare's plays features another wicked uncle.
Come to think of it, Richard has his own ancestor, King John, who certainly imprisoned and may have murdered his nephew Arthur (a lovely teenager who besieged and kidnapped his own grandmother, Eleanor of Aquitaine) as a predecessor. I suspect that the stereotype dates to classical times or earlier, especially since younger brothers have probably competed against their nephews for a dead brother's throne or wealth since time immemorial. We could probably find examples of wicked uncles in myths or the Bible. Anyway, it seems likely to me that the stories about Richard fitted him into an existing stereotype rather than being the origin of the stereotype. Thoughts, anyone?
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
I so loved your description of Richard. It makes me curious about your book.
Eva
Re: Facial Reconstruction
"Yes, interesting isn't it? Was Richard's "image" based on a stereotype, or was He the original?"
Carol responds:
Someone has beaten us to it. After finding (and losing) a book that discusses both "Babes in the Wood" (one of whom is a girl named Jane) and Richard's probable *innocence* in the deaths/disappearance of his nephews (the authors' choice for murderer is MB after Henry's accession), I did a more specific search for "Richard III Babes in the Wood wicked uncle" and found this very interesting and informative article, which notes that Hicks and Seward take for granted that the legend is based on Richard III but questions that assumption: http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34A.html
I haven't read it all the way through yet, but I think it answers most of our questions. Off to finish the article now.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Thank you for posting that fascinating article, Carol. Well done for finding that. Particularly interesting to a lifelong old folkie like me.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: justcarol67@... <justcarol67@...>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Facial Reconstruction
Sent: Thu, Mar 13, 2014 11:06:31 PM
Jess wrote :
"Yes, interesting isn't it? Was Richard's "image" based on a stereotype, or was He the original?"
Carol responds:
Someone has beaten us to it. After finding (and losing) a book that discusses both "Babes in the Wood" (one of whom is a girl named Jane) and Richard's probable *innocence* in the deaths/disappearance of his nephews (the authors' choice for murderer is MB after Henry's accession), I did a more specific search for "Richard III Babes in the Wood wicked uncle" and found this very interesting and informative article, which notes that Hicks and Seward take for granted that the legend is based on Richard III but questions that assumption: http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34A.html
I haven't read it all the way through yet, but I think it answers most of our questions. Off to finish the article now.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Carol earlier:
"Someone has beaten us to it. After finding (and losing) a book that discusses both "Babes in the Wood" (one of whom is a girl named Jane) and Richard's probable *innocence* in the deaths/disappearance of his nephews (the authors' choice for murderer is MB after Henry's accession), I did a more specific search for "Richard III Babes in the Wood wicked uncle" and found this very interesting and informative article, which notes that Hicks and Seward take for granted that the legend is based on Richard III but questions that assumption: http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34A.html
"I haven't read it all the way through yet, but I think it answers most of our questions. Off to finish the article now."
Carol again:
Okay, I've found that my "interesting and informative article" goes off on a long, long tangent that puts our posts to shame analyzing the Tudor legend, the sources, Richard's supposed crimes, the Protectorate, the "usurpation," Titulus Regius, and the disappearance of the "Princes" from an odd perspective (the author likes Richard, especially his legislation, but thinks he probably killed his nephews and ruthlessly dispatched Hastings and Rivers). All that is best skipped unless you have lots of time and want to know what every source said and what this person makes of it all. I say he's a bit behind the times in his awareness of source material, but that's beside the point. He returns to "Babes in the Wood" on page five(!) of his discussion of the ballad/song/story in relation to Richard III. Here's the link to that page: http://www.fresnostate.edu/folklore/ballads/LQ34D.html The author points up similarities and differences between the "Babes" and the "Princes" (More's version). He seems to think that More's Richard is not the original wicked uncle in folklore or fiction (which is certainly true) and that the song could have originated in Tudor times as anti-Richard propaganda in a much less developed version, but it would have to be much older (about 110 years!) than the first extant version.
Sorry to be in a hurry--I don't have time to read the last page--the only relevant part after the first page.
Hope this has been of some use. I'm rather disappointed myself. The main point is that others before us have explored this question.
Carol
Re: Facial Reconstruction
Pansy
