Facial Reconstruction

Hi Kathryn and allI 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, confirmthe 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 andsell it as the real Richard.If one was really interested to recreate the best possible likeness of a person, the thorough study of thebest 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 portraitlooks finer that too should be considered. There should be a possibility of make free alterations on theinitial computer generated face, as we know that there are things disputable in it. I don't know if thiswas possible but I wished it was. Then one could make a 3D-printing and carefully begin to do thefinishingThe other possibility would be to sculpture the face on a replica of the skull. That of course is not thetrendy 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 moreconvincing 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 capso 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 ofdisputable 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 varyinglight 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 linesaround the eyes where there are no lines in the sculptured form, to make him look older, IMO does not workand 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 madewithout respect and care for Richard. Eva

I'm having trouble finding the right link (posting via smartphone right now), but didn't the reconstructionists state that the initial try was done without consulting the portraits but using the average generic skin and other measurements that would be expected of Northern European Caucasian males of his time?
Give him woolly nut-brown hair, a slightly thinner face and eyebrows, lose the squint but leave the mouth as it is, and I suspect the result would be something his friends would ken was Richard.
Tamara

Hi Eva ,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

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

Hi Tamara,Yes, you are right, Prof. Wilkinson did the reconstruction deliberately without consulting portraits as afurther 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

Hi JennieYou 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

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 JennieYou 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

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 JennieYou 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

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 JennieYou 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

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 faceVickieSent 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 iPadOn 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 JennieYou 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

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

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 JennieYou 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

I don't know why the post of mine about superimposing picture has come in
twice. Apologies. I wanted to add to other messages that it is only too easy for
illness to alter the shape of one's face. I had a terrible mastoid in my left
ear when I was three, around 1947. The earache was so agonising I can remember
it clearly even now. This was the days before antibiotics, and I was about to be
carted off into hospital when it, um, did its own thing and there was no longer
any point in going anywhere to have it seen to. Anyway, the result is that as I
grew, it gradually became clear that the left side of my jaw is slightly
misshapen, going up where it should be level. My left ear was affected, so my
glasses are wonky as well, and my mouth sometimes looks as if it fancies doing a
mini-Jonathan King. The mastoid damaged my eardrum, so I don't hear so well that
side either.
The tinnitus is a pest. My dentist is fascinated. These days
you don't often get to see the outcome of a mastoid doing its worst! All due to
being a few years too early for antibiotics. We are SO fortunate
now!
So I too sympathise with Richard. And with you Vickie. And
anyone else who feels lop-sided for any reason.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: eva.pitter@...
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 12:10 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Facial
Reconstruction
Hi JennieYou 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

by all means don't trust the painter but look at the skeleton. The ends of the first, second and fifth fingers of the right hand are missing, no question about that. Then look at the NPG portrait and see what Richard has done! It's really quite funny and perhaps a bit naughty of him! One, or even two could have been by chance, but all three? No way. Richard thought through everything he did and he had this portrait sussed!

Hi Sandra,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

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

All this business about the fingers <sigh>. Philippa has reassured us on numerous occasions, the little bones went missing posthumously.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

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

Indeed, what a man.

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

If you look at the NPG portrait, the little finger on his
right hand is missing quite a *large* bone (and it's the only finger that is). It's not only half
length but nailless, and we know that Richard was wounded at Barnet and that the
wound was spoken of as if it was significant, and yet it does not seem to have
affected his health in anyway. I'd attach an enlargement of that particular section of the painting, but I don't think that'll work in this format.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

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

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 about1.72 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

Hermaphrodite? Good grief. Poor Richard. Whatever next? Please
don't tell me Castorf envisages him with bosoms as well. Perhaps when our king
went into battle he looked like Helen Mirren's Morgan le Fey in
Excalibur.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: eva.pitter@...
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:48 PM
To:
Subject: 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
about1.72 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

Sandra wrote:"Hermaphrodite? Good grief. Poor Richard. Whatever next? Please
don't tell me Castorf envisages him with bosoms as well. Perhaps when our king
went into battle he looked like Helen Mirren's Morgan le Fey in
Excalibur."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

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

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

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

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.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: pansydobersby
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

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

That might explain a lot, Pansy. I wonder who would have been punished for
the loss of the sovereign's pinkie nail? Just think, it might have been the one
he used to pick his nose!
Sandra
=^..^=
From: pansydobersby
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

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
FeltSent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:43 AMTo:
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

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

Hear Hear Sandra.Loyaulte me Lie.Christine

Indeed..this is how rumours can start,,.the term used by the archaeologists was 'gracile' meaning Richard was slim....Eileen

Hi All,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

Sandra,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

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

Eva, I was having a go at Mr. C, not you. Please don't think
otherwise.
Judy, regarding Henry's pinkie. I had a private (sorry!) message from
another forum member (oops!) having the same giggle about it. (You know who you
are!) It had never occurred to me that a shortened little finger could be
likened to a shortened something else. Well, not really... OK, I'm lying.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Judy Thomson
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:28 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

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

Since when has a hog been a castrated boar? The dictionary says a hog is
any wild or domesticated swine that weighs over 120lbs. That's my understanding.
Nothing about castration. And let's face it, boar doesn't rhyme conveniently
with dog.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: khafara@...
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 6:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

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

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

Jessie...I prefer to call him wiry...like my dad was....but very strong....my husband too come to think of it...Eileen

Aww, come on, Pansy. Let me have my version. <grin> I can't have
Richard castrated as well as androgynous and hermaphroditic! It begins to feel
like Insult Richard Day. =^..^=
From: pansydobersby
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 7:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

Oh hooray and hooray and hooray...amazon have just told me JAHs Third Plantagenet is winging it's way towards me.....Eileen

Hi, Tamara,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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, Judy, it wasn't Claire. Claire's never claimed to be a doctor. She is, however, a former NHS administrator. ;-)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

Go check it on One-Look Dictionary (www.onelook.com),
which combines meanings from all the big dictionaries: Oxford,
Macmillan's, Webster's etc.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

Pansy! Another Scandihoovian on the list? Uff da!(My great-grandparents on my mother's side came from Småland in Sweden and Trondheim in Norway.)Tamara

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/hog1British a male pig whose sex organs have been removedThesaurus entry for this meaning of hog

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.

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, 0:36Subject: 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

I am not being argumentative here, or attempting to rake over old posts,
just perplexed about this little finger' business. When I go to http://content.time.com/time/interactive/0,31813,2135799,00.html
and examine both hands, I see what is presumably a normal left hand, little
finger intact. Then I look at the right hand, and although I accept that fingers
1 and 2 have probably lost something posthumously, I am curious about the little
finger. Yes, there are only two bones, the upper of which is a little thin (IMHO
 but I have no medical expertise whatsoever). This upper bone has also been
arranged a considerable way from the one it adjoins. If they are pushed closer
together, the finger becomes very short. Looking again at the left hand, and
expecting the lost' bone to be the same size as its counterpart, I can't help
thinking his right pinkie' must have been curtailed, with or without the
missing bone.
Where this is leading is---might such a narrow finger give rise to some
superstition that his fingers were like claws? Or that he had a claw? As
subsequently painted by his Tudor foes? Plus, didn't someone (can't recall who)
say that the remaining upper bone of the right hand little finger had withered'
(I hate to use that word!) indicating it had been lost during life and had time
to react to the loss of the topmost bone?
I repeat that I am not being argumentative here, just very curious. Every
time the problem of the missing' digit crops up, puzzlement sets in.
Sandra
=^..^=

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.

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

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

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

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

I've had that happen too, Eileen. =^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:02 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

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

Wow, Pamela - hope you have a great time! Where in Espana will you be traveling? My family's based in Andalucia, specifically in Granada, the city I know best, Cordoba and Malaga.
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

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

Check out some photos - they hang canvas across the tops of buildings so that the streets have some shade. It was still there the year I went in November.
Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>To: "<>" <> Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 12:03Subject: 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, 0:36Subject:
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

I can find people's real addresses unless they block them but if she is an ex member she shouldn't be able to do that
Liz

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>To: "<>" <> Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2014, 12:08Subject: 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

Apparently Claire is not an ex-member but just unable to post.....well that makes sense ...not!

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

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

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

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

What I'd like to be is there in Bluebottle Castle when all those nosey
parker flies get back to compare stories.
=^..^=
From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 4:40 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

Indeed - although we can and do throw mud at MB et al, they would never had stood a chance had it not been for Edward's foolishness. H 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

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

You wouldn't be able to hear a thing for all the buzzing going on....Eileen

Eh? What was that? Can't hear a thing in all this racket. =^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 5:19 PM
To:
Subject: Re: RE: Facial
Reconstruction
You wouldn't be able to hear a thing for all the buzzing going
on....Eileen

Actually that's a pretty good description of his grandson as well - but perhaps we can make allowances for a head injury in the case of the latter. Perhaps Edward had a bang on the head some time just after Towton? H 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

You see if nothing is literally taped what is spoken can change a little every time it is passed on. What do they call this...Chinese whispers...? None of the chroniclers/writers of the time can be trusted entirely,they would all had their own biases, motives and much of it written years after it had happened. memories cannot be trusted either...I can't remember where I was this time last week...really I can't. Apparently the old duchess of Desmond reckoned she had danced or spoken to both Richard and Edward which would have made her about 140 years old or thereabouts..yeah right! Eileen

Jan here.I think that if you look on the Forum list of members it is possible to find individual posters' email addresses from there.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

Well that is supposedly possible with Fat Henry...a bang in the head,,,,but wait!...maybe he was just a complete and utter cruel tyrant anyway...Eileen

It is so frustrating Eileen. I hope that there are more bits of the jigsaw out there somewhere. At one of his weekend lectures on "Richard Good or Bad?" Kevin Down told us that while he thought that most of the National records had been found he thought that there could be local records that may not yet have been discovered. Not necessarily saying "it was Tudor/ Buckingham what dun it" but maybe providing more evidence about Richard's character or whereabouts. JAH has discovered lots of bits of evidence to make Edward's marriage to Eleanor more credible and I am looking forward to his new book about Clarence. So chin up onwards and upwards justice for Richard.Mary

I've always regarded the murder of George Duke of Clarence as the precursor to subsequent events. To murder your brother when he was clearly unhinged by grief and had been loyal for a few years. I think that having never heArd different. With Cicely and Richard demanding he be allowed to live and EdwArd risking his eternal sole. We have to ask what the hell did George know or suggest which forced his brother to the most heinous of crimes. Only armed rebellion should come close. Oh yes he was forgiven that. I would love to hear more about this man. Any ideas anyone?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

Very sad but true Hilary.Mary

I quite liked Edward until I read " Eleanor the Secret Queen". He was not a very nice person though I suppose we could excuse him a bit as he was under extreme pressure from the delightful Elizabeth.Mary

A question...does anybody know....After George was sentenced to death Parliament pressed Edward to carry out the sentence. Obviously some of those involved would have had their own agenda and Hicks writes in his Clarence book that the Speaker was a "trusted servant of the Wydevilles",,,,my question is this...would Edward have had the power to pardon his brother at this late stage with Parliament pushing for the death sentence to be carried out? Eileen

True Mary...as Winston Churchill said...never, ever, ever give up....Eileen

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. x

Hi Eva and everyone,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

Hi Pamela and everyone,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

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

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

Carol wrote: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 givean exact line drawing to several different people and ask them to paint the person on the drawing, you will getvery 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 saidabout 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

Kathryn wrote :"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

Kathryn wrote :"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)

Kathryn wrote :"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

Carol,I do so agree to your post, especially the last sentence!Eva

As do I!

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

Eva wrote :"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)

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 97Eva

Eva wrote :"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

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.

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

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.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:19 PM
To:
Subject: 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

I agree with you Eileen. We seem to go over these appearance things again and again and I would ask whether they really matter anyway - unless it's a gross misrepresentation aimed at blackening character like a hunchback? Surely what really matters is the morals/intentions of the man and I, for one, am quite satisfied with those. Perhaps we're lucky his feet weren't found or we'd be reading something ominous into the bones of his toes? Sorry I'm grumpy but this is getting tedious folks. H 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

Paintings that are as old as these have probably been repainted and touched up many times over the centuries and sometimes very poorly and sometimes by artists less gifted that the original. I'm not an expert but it's obvious this is what happens. 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

Jennie wrote :"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

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

Carol. I agree wholeheartedly with you.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

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.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

A missing digit is hardly an emotionally charged subject, just a subject.
And if we have differing opinions, we should express them. There is more than
one point of view, so please do not sigh.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: justcarol67@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 3:50 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

Indeed Sandra....I think the best course of action would be simply to ignore those topics one finds boring/tedious which is what I do frequently rather than banning them....Eileen

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

Would they dare to notice' it? I wouldn't like to fall foul of HT. You
know, The Emperor's New Clothes and all that.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 6:03 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 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

Yes I wondered about that....but hey he has been dead an awful long time.....it has only come to my notice recently that he had something going on with one of his eyes.....although I did know about the 'few blackened teeth'...which is far worse....I'm always surprised when medieval etc., skulls turn up that the teeth of even the poorest were quite good...well prima facie...there may have been stuff going on such as abscess' lurking around ready to spring to life...which I think was the case with Anne Mowbray....her teeth were examined and If I recall correctly they reckoned that later on if she had lived she would have developed an abscess. So blackened teeth were not it seems the norm. Maybe he liked sweet stuff.....although he has the look of someone weaned on a lemon. Eileen

Eileen, I honestly don't think physical imperfections would have made that much of a difference unless somebody had propaganda points to score. Major birth defects and things like leprosy would have been scary, yes, but we're talking about an era when minor birth defects and common childhood complaints weren't treatable the way they are now... an era without dentistry and Max Factor... an era when many brave soldiers would have suffered major injuries in their careers, and women's bodies were regularly ravaged by childbearing... simply put, it was not an era of physical perfection - most people would have had imperfections and even 'deformities', and I'd claim that most imperfections were seen as much more 'normal' than they are now.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

Pansy wrote: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 makesmy blood boil. It is simply an insult to Richard. I don't understand how they can be so careless in visualmatters concerning Richard,it is as if everyone can distort his image at will and nobody seems to care.Eva

I'm inclined to agree with you on this Pansy....it wasn't a time for the squeamish thats for certain. I don't expect I would have lasted a fortnight....Eileen who has been known to throw a wobbly at the sight of an earthworm...

Oh, I agree about the facial reconstruction, Eva - I don't like it either, I don't think it's accurate for many reasons and I don't think it's superficial at all to object to it. The message you were quoting was about the fingers :)Pansy

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

OH MERCIFUL GODS. I just glanced at the back of the Bulletin... now I wish I hadn't.It reminds me of someone, but not sure who exactly.Pansy

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...
Sandra
=^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:17 PM
To:
Subject: 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

Norman Wisdom......?

Oh God..,I should have said I was replying to Pansy then....not Sandra ....Eileen

It took me a moment or so too, Eileen. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: cherryripe.eileenb@...
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 7:39 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Facial
Reconstruction
Oh God..,I should have said I was replying to Pansy then....not Sandra
....Eileen

Eileen, yes! Norman Wisdom with a bit of Mel Smith thrown in.On the other hand, the side view on page 38 looks a bit like Peter Steele.PansyP.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?

Eileen, yes! Norman Wisdom with a bit of Mel Smith thrown in.On the other hand, the side view on page 38 looks a bit like Peter Steele.PansyP.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?

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

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

Lol Hilary..you mean "false, fleeting, teeny perjur'd Clarence".....aka Little Legs among his friends....Eileen

Oh my Lord, isn't that the truth? We are nitpicking this to the nth degree......when we should be attempting to do more to get him buried, and his honor restored.

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

Yep - that little upstart! :) :) H 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

From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> 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

Hilary wrote,That is until we get on to George the Short! :) Eva answersDo 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 allthe novels about the dwarfish Richard and the nearly as tall as Edward George, must I now adaptto the contrary?Eva

This is why it's a joy being a member of this forum Jonathan and Eva :) :) Or could it be that John Rous got his dimensions wrong when drawing George and Izzy - too much Communion wine the night before? H 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 answersDo 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 allthe novels about the dwarfish Richard and the nearly as tall as Edward George, must I now adaptto the contrary?Eva

The sigh was for going around and around the same topics with no new evidence. And, forgive me, but if I want to sigh, I'll sigh. Sigh. <smile>Carol

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

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

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

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

I would add nothing, with the exception oh his smile absolutely transforming him, suffusing him with light.
Your description very much parallels my wiry and very strong uncle. He had lost many people in his life, but when we smiled, the world around him was alight.

On Mar 12, 2014, at 9:22 PM, "justcarol67@..." <justcarol67@...> wrote:

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

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

Maybe also add the fact that he was a very capable leader and was the right person to be King in the circumstances bequeathed to him by his brother. His sense of justice was way before his time and his championing of all his subjects, not just the nobility, was admirable.

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 

Yes. There is a lovely passage in a Kate Sedley book where he rides into London (circa 1475 I think) looking very severe and fed up with coming there and then he spots a face in the crowd which he knows and is transformed by his smile. Perhaps some of this is because his brothers (yes George as well!) were known for being charismatic, but he wasn't. Yet, as Horrox says, those who knew or were rewarded by him, treasured his memory deeply for years beyond his death. I always have him as the quiet one. H 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

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 descriptionsof him that there is little left for me to say. I just want to add that my Richard was a good lute player andhad 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 thatwould light up his face.Just now I feel my English is not good enough to do him justice.Eva

Jess wrote:"You made me think, is the whole idea of "the wicked uncle" based on Richard? Or was this stereotype known before?"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

Eva, we all seem to be agreed on that glorious smile. We've never
seen it, yet we know it was there. I wonder why everyone senses that
one thing about him? We describe other things and think other things, but the
smile isn't doubted for a moment.
And your English is excellent. Do not doubt that either.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: eva.pitter@...
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:01 PM
To:
Subject: 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 descriptionsof him that there is little
left for me to say. I just want to add that my Richard was a good lute player
andhad 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 thatwould
light up his face.Just now I feel my English is not good enough to do him
justice.Eva

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

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

Thank you, Sandra!I so loved your description of Richard. It makes me curious about your book. Eva

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.htmlI 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

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.htmlI 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

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

Thank you, Carol - it looks like an interesting and informative article indeed! I'll have to print it out and read it later (I can't read long pieces of text on the computer screen; bad eyes). But at a quick glance, the article looks like it's analysing whether or not Richard might be the source of the 'wicked uncle' legend - it doesn't specifically talk about the local implications of Wayland Wood. But either way, very interesting!Pansy