Picture of Richard
Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote :
"This, however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesn't work, it's at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it." Carol responds:
Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote :
"This,
however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater
If the link doesn't work, it's at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do
like it."
Carol responds:
Thank you, Sandra. I
had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish
color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these.
They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a
photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how.
is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't
navigate Facebook.)
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:26 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if we're talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey. Not too sure about the Since he [Richard] ruled from York and he wanted to be buried in York... bit though. Not exactly accurate. But perhaps Julian really is King Richard III come back! If he is, he has inside information, eh? <g> I don't know my way around Facebook either. I joined it the day before yesterday, and am like a rabbit caught in headlights! It terrifies me. I'm afraid to do anything, for fear of sharing with the whole damned world. I'm assured my privacy settings are tight enough, but even so... Anyway, that is not the point. I do not know who this King Richard III' is. Except that it was rather odd to read him' declaring it to be a good picture. As if Richard himself had seen it and was expressing personal approval. Weird. Imagine Richard with a personal Facebook page. Just think how many likes and followers he'd have! Talk about going viral.... Sandra =^..^= From: justcarol67@... Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:21 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote :
"This, however, is
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesn't work, it's at
https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it."
Carol responds:
Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like
a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
I think maybe itýs OK to believe the Big Guy is speaking directly, but thereýd be a few sideways looks if someone said they had chats with Richard III. Mind you, I wouldnýt say no to a cream tea with him. Not that I think Iýd be the one heýd choose to socialize with. Unless he was missing his mother. The Big Guy isnýt likely to choose me either, come to that. I have too much to say for myself, and my list of gripes is a mile long, so He wouldnýt get a word in.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: Pamela Bain
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:58 PM
To: mailto:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
We have a very nice man working with us, who is a devout Catholic. He is, I think, what is called a Charismatic Catholic. He believes that "God" speaks to him directly. I sort of hope the Big Guy is not taking a close and personal interest in me. However, my point is, that maybe Julian is a Charismatic Ricardian and thinks he is communing with him. That, or he has another mini-series in the works!
On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:26 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if weýre talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey. Not too sure about the ýSince he [Richard] ruled from York and he wanted to be buried in York...ý bit though. Not exactly accurate. But perhaps Julian really is King Richard III come back! If he is, he has inside information, eh? <g> I donýt know my way around Facebook either. I joined it the day before yesterday, and am like a rabbit caught in headlights! It terrifies me. Iým afraid to do anything, for fear of sharing with the whole damned world. Iým assured my privacy settings are tight enough, but even so...
Anyway, that is not the point. I do not know who this ýKing Richard IIIý is. Except that it was rather odd to read ýhimý declaring it to be a good picture. As if Richard himself had seen it and was expressing personal approval. Weird. Imagine Richard with a personal Facebook page. Just think how many likes and followers heýd have! Talk about going viral....
Sandra
=^..^=
From: justcarol67@...
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote :
"This, however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesnýt work, itýs at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it."
Carol responds:
Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
A J
Re: Picture of Richard
The Facebook Page King Richard III was set up May 8, 2011, by a devoted Ricardian who spends a great deal of time disseminating historical information & news about Richard III on Facebook. A J
Re: Picture of Richard
"Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if we're talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey."
Carol responds:
Yes, that's the man I meant. i can't tell whether he created the photoshopped portrait of Richard (which I really like) or merely posted it to his Richard III website (which is rather uncritical on what it includes--essentially, anything related to Richard, whether it's the historical Richard, Aneurin Barnard from the "White Queen" (at least, I think that's him; I didn't pay to watch the series on Pay per View), or Shakespeare's caricature. Still, I might just watch the "Downton Abbey" DVD set I got for Christmas now that I know its creator is interested in Richard.
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
The page you have linked, on which the photo of Julian Fellowes appears is not his page. It is part of the King Richard III page (created & maintained by Dianne Penn). She posted that photo when Fellowes sent a letter of support to the "Petition Page" (Petition to bring Richard III back to Yorkshire - page on FB). Dianne uses an image of Richard III based on the facial reconstruction & "PhotoShopped" by Cindy Tschök. Julian Fellowes has an "automatically generated" FB page, which I suppose is not a page he set up himself.
A J
Re: Picture of Richard
"Carol The page you have linked, on which the photo of Julian Fellowes appears is not his page. It is part of the King Richard III page (created & maintained by Dianne Penn). She posted that photo when Fellowes sent a letter of support to the "Petition Page" (Petition to bring Richard III back to Yorkshire - page on FB). Dianne uses an image of Richard III based on the facial reconstruction & "PhotoShopped" by Cindy Tschök. Julian Fellowes has an "automatically generated" FB page, which I suppose is not a page he set up himself."
Carol responds:
Thanks for the explanation. How did you discover who created the photoshopped image? I'm sure there's a simple answer, but I'm totally at sea on Facebook. At least it does seem that Julian Fellowes is a supporter of Richard. Maybe someone could talk him into working with Sharon Kay Penman on an adaptation of "The Sunne in Splendour"?
If I Google "Richard III Facebook," will that take me to Dianne's page? I don't want to join the conversation; I just want to see the photoshopped image and the credit if it's there.
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
Mary
Re: Picture of Richard
Googling isn't too helpful, because it turns up way too many hits to search though. A direct link to Dianne's page is https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll. I don't know if she credits the creator of the image somewhere on her page, because it's a bear to try to search through posts, especially for someone who is as busy as Dianne in posting whatever she finds about Richard. And her page, unlike some, doesn't have a search function.
A J
Yes, Facebook is confusing, & not so user-friendly to some of us more mature types. I understand too, that the younger crowd has moved on to other social network applications, & now use FB mainly to keep in touch with their older relatives.
Re: Picture of Richard
As for Julian Fellowes and Downton being "brilliant". A matter of taste
I would say. Enertaining certainly, but far from brilliant.
As for his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, within minutes I was gasping
at the non Shakespeare lines that were appearing,making many of the
lines almost unspeakable, and certainly not scanning properly. All
Shakespearean adaptations need editing [though Branagh's Hamlet was
unusually filmed with an uncut text] but ti intersperse modern idioms
and words with the Bard makes no sense at all!
Ruined the play for me.
Paul
On 29/03/2014 22:31, SandraMachin wrote:
> How brilliant if at least one of these hoped-for mini-series come off, Pamela, because we'll be truly pampered. My fingers are crossed for Paul.
>
> I think maybe it's OK to believe the Big Guy is speaking directly, but there'd be a few sideways looks if someone said they had chats with Richard III. Mind you, I wouldn't say no to a cream tea with him. Not that I think I'd be the one he'd choose to socialize with. Unless he was missing his mother. The Big Guy isn't likely to choose me either, come to that. I have too much to say for myself, and my list of gripes is a mile long, so He wouldn't get a word in.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:58 PM
> To: mailto:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> We have a very nice man working with us, who is a devout Catholic. He is, I think, what is called a Charismatic Catholic. He believes that "God" speaks to him directly. I sort of hope the Big Guy is not taking a close and personal interest in me. However, my point is, that maybe Julian is a Charismatic Ricardian and thinks he is communing with him. That, or he has another mini-series in the works!
>
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:26 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if we're talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey. Not too sure about the Since he [Richard] ruled from York and he wanted to be buried in York... bit though. Not exactly accurate. But perhaps Julian really is King Richard III come back! If he is, he has inside information, eh? <g> I don't know my way around Facebook either. I joined it the day before yesterday, and am like a rabbit caught in headlights! It terrifies me. I'm afraid to do anything, for fear of sharing with the whole damned world. I'm assured my privacy settings are tight enough, but even so...
>
> Anyway, that is not the point. I do not know who this King Richard III' is. Except that it was rather odd to read him' declaring it to be a good picture. As if Richard himself had seen it and was expressing personal approval. Weird. Imagine Richard with a personal Facebook page. Just think how many likes and followers he'd have! Talk about going viral....
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: justcarol67@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
> Sandra wrote :
>
>
>
> "This, however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesn't work, it's at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Picture of Richard
Couldn't bear to watch the Fellowes 'Romeo & Juliet'. Final straw was hearing he'd cut "I am fortune's fool', which is concise and emotionally intelligible enough for anyone, and replaced it with a "translation" saying half as much using twice the words. (He also had the gall to say that Shakespeare, as originally written, is fine for people with a Cambridge degree like him, but others less fortunate might struggle! Yes, well tell that to directors like Greg Doran at the RSC or Dominic Dromgoole at the Globe, who view inclusivity as a mission statement...)
I did admire his script for 'Gosford Park'. But I now think him a very mediocre writer who struck lucky, and has been riffing on that brief moment of success ever since to increasingly diminishing returns.
Jonathan
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 10:45
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Thank you Sandra.
As for Julian Fellowes and Downton being "brilliant". A matter of taste
I would say. Enertaining certainly, but far from brilliant.
As for his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, within minutes I was gasping
at the non Shakespeare lines that were appearing,making many of the
lines almost unspeakable, and certainly not scanning properly. All
Shakespearean adaptations need editing [though Branagh's Hamlet was
unusually filmed with an uncut text] but ti intersperse modern idioms
and words with the Bard makes no sense at all!
Ruined the play for me.
Paul
On 29/03/2014 22:31, SandraMachin wrote:
> How brilliant if at least one of these hoped-for mini-series come off, Pamela, because we'll be truly pampered. My fingers are crossed for Paul.
>
> I think maybe it's OK to believe the Big Guy is speaking directly, but there'd be a few sideways looks if someone said they had chats with Richard III. Mind you, I wouldn't say no to a cream tea with him. Not that I think I'd be the one he'd choose to socialize with. Unless he was missing his mother. The Big Guy isn't likely to choose me either, come to that. I have too much to say for myself, and my list of gripes is a mile long, so He wouldn't get a word in.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:58 PM
> To: mailto:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> We have a very nice man working with us, who is a devout Catholic. He is, I think, what is called a Charismatic Catholic. He believes that "God" speaks to him directly. I sort of hope the Big Guy is not taking a close and personal interest in me. However, my point is, that maybe Julian is a Charismatic Ricardian and thinks he is communing with him. That, or he has another mini-series in the works!
>
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:26 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if we're talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey. Not too sure about the Since he [Richard] ruled from York and he wanted to be buried in York... bit though. Not exactly accurate. But perhaps Julian really is King Richard III come back! If he is, he has inside information, eh? <g> I don't know my way around Facebook either. I joined it the day before yesterday, and am like a rabbit caught in headlights! It terrifies me. I'm afraid to do anything, for fear of sharing with the whole damned world. I'm assured my privacy settings are tight enough, but even so...
>
> Anyway, that is not the point. I do not know who this King Richard III' is. Except that it was rather odd to read him' declaring it to be a good picture. As if Richard himself had seen it and was expressing personal approval. Weird. Imagine Richard with a personal Facebook page. Just think how many likes and followers he'd have! Talk about going viral....
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: justcarol67@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
> Sandra wrote :
>
>
>
> "This, however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesn't work, it's at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
Picture of Richard
Re: Julian Fellowes (Was "Picture of Richard")
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 17:15
Subject: Picture of Richard
Doug wrote:
As for his remarks concerning the possible "struggles" with Shakespeare that non-graduates of Cambridge might have, I have to, partially, agree. The language Shakespeare used is considered "modern" English, but enough of the words are either no longer used or have acquired newer, better-known meanings so that one is often forced to stop and consider *how* the word is being used to understand what is being said. That's not too much of problem when you're reading, but if you're at a performance of one of the plays or a movie adaptation where there's no time for a pause for an explanation...
Hi Doug
Understand what you're saying, but I tend to find that it's when *reading* Shakespeare that the language can sometimes be problematic. Most issues tend to resolve themselves in performance - at least if the performance is half-way decent.
That's not to say that you don't cut text. I'm all for losing stuff that obscures meaning, and I also don't mind a degree of word substitution if it aids clarity. But what Fellowes was doing is a whole different order of vandalism, and he also justified it in the most condescending way (for which he was roundly ridiculed on 'The Now Show', a BBC Radio comedy, which depicted him expounding on the fact that, because of his highly expensive degree, he was able to understand and interpret for the plebeian classes the language of the Clangers - and you'd need to be a Brit growing up in the seventies to get much sense out of that).
Jonathan
From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
To:
Cc: Doug Stamate <destama@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 17:15
Subject: Picture of Richard
Jonathan wrote: //snip// "I did admire his script for 'Gosford Park'. But now think him a very mediocre writer who struck lucky, and has been riffing on that brief moment of success ever since to increasingly diminshing returns." Doug here: Sorry to say, I've never seen "Gosford Park", but rather like "Downton Abbey" (although not enough to worry if I miss an episode). Can witers/directors be "typecast" just as actors often are? If so, that might explain the projects he's done and is being offered. As for his remarks concerning the possible "struggles" with Shakespeare that non-graduates of Cambridge might have, I have to, partially, agree. The language Shakespeare used is considered "modern" English, but enough of the words are either no longer used or have acquired newer, better-known meanings so that one is often forced to stop and consider *how* the word is being used to understand what is being said. That's not too much of problem when you're reading, but if you're at a performance of one of the plays or a movie adaptation where there's no time for a pause for an explanation... Doug (who tends to read Shakespeare a scene or two at a time)
Re: Picture of Richard
The first Downton was good, though hardly original, and the second season was clearly written in a rush, the third picked it up again only to sink again in the last one. I also think Downton was just a rewrite of his Oscar winning movie from a few years ago.
Paul
On 02/04/2014 11:08, Jonathan Evans wrote:
Hi Paul
Couldn't bear to watch the Fellowes 'Romeo & Juliet'. Final straw was hearing he'd cut "I am fortune's fool', which is concise and emotionally intelligible enough for anyone, and replaced it with a "translation" saying half as much using twice the words. (He also had the gall to say that Shakespeare, as originally written, is fine for people with a Cambridge degree like him, but others less fortunate might struggle! Yes, well tell that to directors like Greg Doran at the RSC or Dominic Dromgoole at the Globe, who view inclusivity as a mission statement...)
I did admire his script for 'Gosford Park'. But I now think him a very mediocre writer who struck lucky, and has been riffing on that brief moment of success ever since to increasingly diminishing returns.
Jonathan
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 2 April 2014, 10:45
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Thank you Sandra.
As for Julian Fellowes and Downton being "brilliant". A matter of taste
I would say. Enertaining certainly, but far from brilliant.
As for his adaptation of Romeo and Juliet, within minutes I was gasping
at the non Shakespeare lines that were appearing,making many of the
lines almost unspeakable, and certainly not scanning properly. All
Shakespearean adaptations need editing [though Branagh's Hamlet was
unusually filmed with an uncut text] but ti intersperse modern idioms
and words with the Bard makes no sense at all!
Ruined the play for me.
Paul
On 29/03/2014 22:31, SandraMachin wrote:
> How brilliant if at least one of these hoped-for mini-series come off, Pamela, because we’ll be truly pampered. My fingers are crossed for Paul.
>
> I think maybe it’s OK to believe the Big Guy is speaking directly, but there’d be a few sideways looks if someone said they had chats with Richard III. Mind you, I wouldn’t say no to a cream tea with him. Not that I think I’d be the one he’d choose to socialize with. Unless he was missing his mother. The Big Guy isn’t likely to choose me either, come to that. I have too much to say for myself, and my list of gripes is a mile long, so He wouldn’t get a word in.
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 9:58 PM
> To: mailto:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
>
>
>
> We have a very nice man working with us, who is a devout Catholic. He is, I think, what is called a Charismatic Catholic. He believes that "God" speaks to him directly. I sort of hope the Big Guy is not taking a close and personal interest in me. However, my point is, that maybe Julian is a Charismatic Ricardian and thinks he is communing with him. That, or he has another mini-series in the works!
>
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 4:26 PM, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Carol, the white-haired gentleman (if we’re talking the same chap) is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=797763723585331&set=pb.214317755263267.-2207520000.1396127589.&type=3&theater Julian Fellowes (Baron Fellowes), writer of Downton Abbey. Not too sure about the “Since he [Richard] ruled from York and he wanted to be buried in York...” bit though. Not exactly accurate. But perhaps Julian really is King Richard III come back! If he is, he has inside information, eh? <g> I don’t know my way around Facebook either. I joined it the day before yesterday, and am like a rabbit caught in headlights! It terrifies me. I’m afraid to do anything, for fear of sharing with the whole damned world. I’m assured my privacy settings are tight enough, but even so...
>
> Anyway, that is not the point. I do not know who this ‘King Richard III’ is. Except that it was rather odd to read ‘him’ declaring it to be a good picture. As if Richard himself had seen it and was expressing personal approval. Weird. Imagine Richard with a personal Facebook page. Just think how many likes and followers he’d have! Talk about going viral....
>
> Sandra
> =^..^=
>
> From: justcarol67@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2014 8:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
> Sandra wrote :
>
>
>
> "This, however, is https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701454723216232&set=a.214318728596503.65350.214317755263267&type=1&theater If the link doesn’t work, it’s at https://www.facebook.com/KingRichardlll?filter=2 I really do like it."
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thank you, Sandra. I had seen a black-and-white thumbnail of that picture and a moving, hologramish color thumbnail that was impossible to copy, but I hadn't seen either of these. They're wonderful. I've now changed my desktop background to what looks like a photo of the living Richard! Now if we could only find out who did it and how. is it the white-haired man in the thumbnail on King Richard's page? (I can't navigate Facebook.)
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group//join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo Groups is subject to:
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Sounds like another blog post ………..
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 04 August 2014 10:38
To:
Subject: [Richard III Society
Forum] Picture of Richard
I have uploaded a new picture in the Portraits album that depicts Richard at the moment he learns of Buckingham’s treachery. I cannot claim it to be all my own work, because it is taken from a work called ‘Call to Arms’ by Edmund Blair Leighton, which is actually about a wedding, where the bridegroom is summoned to war just as he and his bride emerge from the ceremony. The groom seemed to me to offer possibilities as Richard, and so I have used Paint Shop Pro to alter the original figure and turned the armoured gentleman into a Yorkist. The result brought Buckingham’s gross disloyalty to mind, and so that’s what I have named it. I’m pleased with it, and hope it pleases others too.
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a postcard A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...A friend and I bought this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last summer. It was catalogued as Eighteenth Century, and relatively cheap...View on jamesmulraine.comPreview by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
Has anyone seen this? Very
interesting take on why Richard's thumb looks so bad in the NPG
portrait.
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III
restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a
postcard
A
late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...
A friend and I bought
this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last
summer. It was catalogued as Eighteenth Century, and relatively
cheap...
View
on jamesmulraine.com
Preview
by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM,
"eileenbates147@... []"
<> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a postcard A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...A friend and I bought this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last summer. It was catalogued as Eighteenth Century, and relatively cheap...View on jamesmulraine.comPreview by Yahoo
Marie replies:Thank you so much for this - it is absolutely fascinating and enlightening. And it confirms what I always thought - that in the NPG portrait Richard is supposed to be holding the lapel of his gown, not showing off a strangely pointy thumb.
Re: Picture of Richard
That article is fascinating, Vickie. The research about Richard becomes more detailed all the time.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Vickie Cook lolettecook@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 2:29:38 PM
Has anyone seen this? Very interesting take on why Richard's thumb looks so bad in the NPG portrait.
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a postcard A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...A
friend and I bought this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last summer. It was catalogued as
Eighteenth Century, and relatively cheap...View on jamesmulraine.comPreview by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM, "eileenbates147@... []"
<> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
Yes, fascinating&
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:]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 10:32 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
That article is fascinating, Vickie. The research about Richard becomes more detailed all the time.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Vickie Cook
lolettecook@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Wed, Aug 6, 2014 2:29:38 PM
Has anyone seen this? Very interesting take on why Richard's thumb looks so bad in the NPG portrait.
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a postcard
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...
A friend and I bought this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last summer. It was catalogued as Eighteenth Century, and relatively cheap...
View on jamesmulraine.com
Preview by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
not convince me. First, there is no mystery about a picture that was cleaned and restored in the early 70ties.
I trust the restorer knew his job and carried it out with responsibility. So he found a golden foliage of an
earlier date underneath the painted wooden frame and he found a deliberately misshaped right thumb underneath the longer pointed thumb, that was there before the cleaning.It is true that this thumb was darker
but, while it reached under the chain with its tip it was clearly in front of the lapel of the dress. As I have been a
Ricardian at heart way before the 1970ties I have known both versions since then. So, for me no mystery!
I am a little fed up with forthcoming "mysteries" that evaporate into nothing at close scrutiny.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Sent from my iPad
On 6 Aug 2014, at 15:29, "Vickie Cook lolettecook@... []" <> wrote:
Has anyone seen this? Very interesting take on why Richard's thumb looks so bad in the NPG portrait.
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a postcard A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...A
friend and I bought this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last summer. It was catalogued as
Eighteenth Century, and relatively cheap...View on jamesmulraine.comPreview by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM, "eileenbates147@... []"
<> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
Has anyone seen this? Very
interesting take on why Richard's thumb looks so bad in the NPG
portrait.
A late Tudor portrait of King Richard III
restored; and the mystery of the King's thumb solved by a
postcard
A
late Tudor portrait of King Richard III restored; and ...
A friend and I bought
this portrait of King Richard III from Christie's South Kensington last
summer. It was catalogued as Eighteenth Century, and relatively
cheap...
View
on jamesmulraine.com
Preview
by Yahoo
On Monday, August 4, 2014 8:44 AM,
"eileenbates147@... []"
<> wrote:
Like it.......Eileen
Re: Picture of Richard
I would be cautious about the interpretation of the hands in the article.I think we must be aware of, that however much this picture shows a resembles the two older ones and how well the skull fitted in, it still is a Tudor propaganda picture form the late 16th century. It shows a Richard with wrinkles and old sunken eyes, troubled by sorrow and possibly bad conscience for his alleged evil deeds. By no means a strong active king
So if the thumb is painted crippled, that need not bother us, for it is Tudor fantasy.
On the other hand if the pre-restoration thumb was from a later date than the crippled one, I see no way that the restorer could have left it so, just because it might look better.
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva again.
I would be cautious about the interpretation of the hands in
the article.I think we must be aware of, that however much this picture shows a
resembles the two older ones and how well the skull fitted in, it still is a
Tudor propaganda picture form the late 16th century. It shows a Richard with
wrinkles and old sunken eyes, troubled by sorrow and possibly bad conscience for
his alleged evil deeds. By no means a strong active king
So if the thumb is
painted crippled, that need not bother us, for it is Tudor fantasy.
On the
other hand if the pre-restoration thumb was from a later date than the crippled
one, I see no way that the restorer could have left it so, just because it might
look better.
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
I just checked the Guardian "on line" and You will all be pleased to know that they are illustrating the story with the picture of the "reconstructed" head which was made by Dr Wilkinson!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 6:52:48 AM
I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently. The illustration decided on to accompany it was a truly Tudor-twiddled version of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered, weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular report. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:29 AM To: Subject: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva again.
I would be cautious about the interpretation of the hands in
the article.I think we must be aware of, that however much this picture shows a
resembles the two older ones and how well the skull fitted in, it still is a
Tudor propaganda picture form the late 16th century. It shows a Richard with
wrinkles and old sunken eyes, troubled by sorrow and possibly bad conscience for
his alleged evil deeds. By no means a strong active king
So if the thumb is
painted crippled, that need not bother us, for it is Tudor fantasy.
On the
other hand if the pre-restoration thumb was from a later date than the crippled
one, I see no way that the restorer could have left it so, just because it might
look better.
Re: Picture of Richard
I just checked the Guardian "on line" and You will all be pleased to know that they are illustrating the story with the picture of the "reconstructed" head which was made by Dr Wilkinson!
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 6:52:48 AM
I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently. The illustration decided on to accompany it was a truly Tudor-twiddled version of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered, weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular report. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 8:29 AM To: Subject: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva again.
I would be cautious about the interpretation
of the hands in the article.I think we must be aware of, that however much
this picture shows a resembles the two older ones and how well the skull
fitted in, it still is a Tudor propaganda picture form the late 16th
century. It shows a Richard with wrinkles and old sunken eyes, troubled by
sorrow and possibly bad conscience for his alleged evil deeds. By no means
a strong active king
So if the thumb is painted crippled,
that need not bother us, for it is Tudor fantasy.
On the
other hand if the pre-restoration thumb was from a later date than the
crippled one, I see no way that the restorer could have left it so, just
because it might look better.
Re: Picture of Richard
>I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently. The illustration decided on to accompany it was a truly Tudor-twiddled version of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered, weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular report.
----
Nice kings are no fun to publicize and they don't make money for whoever, so I think the controversy will always be the media.
In a way, that's a good thing because it will draw new people to him. And if they're thinking people they'll go on to research him and end up where we are.
So I'm trying to see the silver lining in the re-interment clouds and cross my fingers Richard himself can continue working his magic on individuals since the press and a few others seem immune, oblivious, or deliberately manipulative of even the known facts.
~Weds
Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote:
>I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning
newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article
about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently.
The illustration decided on to accompany it was a truly Tudor-twiddled version
of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and
hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered,
weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure
everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't
know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular
report.
----
Nice kings are no fun to publicize and they don't
make money for whoever, so I think the controversy will always be the media.
In a way, that's a good thing because it will draw new people to him.
And if they're thinking people they'll go on to research him and end up where we
are.
So I'm trying to see the silver lining in the re-interment clouds
and cross my fingers Richard himself can continue working his magic on
individuals since the press and a few others seem immune, oblivious, or
deliberately manipulative of even the known facts.
~Weds
Re: Picture of Richard
I would like to think that the time chosen for Richard's reinternment is indicative of a new start.
25th of March is significant to me, because it is my youngest daughter's birthday. It is also Ladyday, one of the quarter days of the English calendar. In Richard's time it was the first day of the new year.
As he will be in effect "lying in state" on that day, and then the re-burial service will be the next day, let us sincerely hope that it will be new year, new start for his reputation too.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 5:28:35 PM
I'll go for deliberately manipulative', Weds. As you say, there's no copy in admitting he's the good guy. And the Tudors are sooooooo glamorous. Well, with a lot of exceptions.... Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:07 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote:
>I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning
newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article
about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently.
The illustration decided on to accompany it was a truly Tudor-twiddled version
of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and
hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered,
weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure
everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't
know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular
report.
----
Nice kings are no fun to publicize and they don't
make money for whoever, so I think the controversy will always be the media.
In a way, that's a good thing because it will draw new people to him.
And if they're thinking people they'll go on to research him and end up where we
are.
So I'm trying to see the silver lining in the re-interment clouds
and cross my fingers Richard himself can continue working his magic on
individuals since the press and a few others seem immune, oblivious, or
deliberately manipulative of even the known facts.
~Weds
Re: Picture of Richard
On Aug 8, 2014, at 12:29 PM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'll go for deliberately manipulative', Weds. As you say, there's no copy in admitting he's the good guy. And the Tudors are sooooooo glamorous. Well, with a lot of exceptions.... Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:07 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote:
>I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently. The illustration decided on to accompany it was a
truly Tudor-twiddled version of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered, weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure
everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular report.
----
Nice kings are no fun to publicize and they don't make money for whoever, so I think the controversy will always be the media.
In a way, that's a good thing because it will draw new people to him. And if they're thinking people they'll go on to research him and end up where we are.
So I'm trying to see the silver lining in the re-interment clouds and cross my fingers Richard himself can continue working his magic on individuals since the press and a few others seem immune, oblivious, or deliberately manipulative of even the known facts.
~Weds
Re: Picture of Richard
On Aug 8, 2014, at 12:58 PM, "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> wrote:
I would like to think that the time chosen for Richard's reinternment is indicative of a new start.
25th of March is significant to me, because it is my youngest daughter's birthday. It is also Ladyday, one of the quarter days of the English calendar. In Richard's time it was the first day of the new year.
As he will be in effect "lying in state" on that day, and then the re-burial service will be the next day, let us sincerely hope that it will be new year, new start for his reputation too.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on
Android
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sent: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 5:28:35 PM
I'll go for deliberately manipulative', Weds. As you say, there's no copy in admitting he's the good guy. And the Tudors are sooooooo glamorous. Well, with a lot of exceptions.... Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:07 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Sandra wrote:
>I watched Sky News this morning, when the morning newspapers were being discussed. The reviewers chose The Guardian's article about Richard's forthcoming state funeral'. The newspaper's words, apparently. The illustration decided on to accompany it was a
truly Tudor-twiddled version of the NPG portrait. Richard's face was the most cruel, yellow, slitty-eyed and hook-nosed they could find. The one that makes him look really wonky-shouldered, weird-fingered and 50 if he's a day! It has to be deliberate, to ensure
everything about him stays as controversial as possible. Depressing. I don't know what the other papers have done, but my thumbs are down for this particular report.
----
Nice kings are no fun to publicize and they don't make money for whoever, so I think the controversy will always be the media.
In a way, that's a good thing because it will draw new people to him. And if they're thinking people they'll go on to research him and end up where we are.
So I'm trying to see the silver lining in the re-interment clouds and cross my fingers Richard himself can continue working his magic on individuals since the press and a few others seem immune, oblivious, or deliberately manipulative of even the known facts.
~Weds
Re: Picture of Richard
"In Aunty's postcard you can clearly see how this dark glaze causes the tip of the thumb to recede, into the shadow under the chain as if the thumb is just reaching behind the fur trim of the doublet".
Eva says:
The thumb on the pre-cleaned portrait does definitely not reach behind the fur trim of the doublet, it is front of it, as it is on the restorated picture.It just takes one single more than cursory look to see this.Someone, some time after the painting was made over- painted the crippled thumb (and the golden foliage).The author argues that the restorer should have left the overpainted thumb to fit his fancyful ideas about the hands, while cleaning other parts (the foliage).I wonder if it is common practice in restoration to pick out at will what you clean or don't clean. He can choose to do so with his private picture. But I think this practice would not do for a museum like the NPG.
The holding of the lapel can be found in some of the later copies.
And, Marie, I don't think the crippled thumb was a case of artist's inaptitude, it is much too delicately drawn for that, while the over-painted thumb, you prefer, is rather roughly done.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Me, too! Thanks for these thoughts, Jess.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 3:06 PM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Thank you for the information. I think that is wonderful!
On Aug 8, 2014, at 12:58 PM, "Jessie Skinner janjovian@... []" <> wrote:
I would like to think that the time chosen for Richard's reinternment is indicative of a new start.
25th of March is significant to me, because it is my youngest daughter's birthday. It is also Ladyday, one of the quarter days of the English calendar. In Richard's time it was the first day of the new year.
As he will be in effect "lying in state" on that day, and then the re-burial service will be the next day, let us sincerely hope that it will be new year, new start for his reputation too.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Isn't the prevailing belief nowadays that all of these paintings spring from an original painting done in his lifetime as a sort of carte de visite for his intended bride, Joanna of Portugal? (Hence the whole business with his fiddling with the ring in the first place?) Tamara
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
"And, Marie, I don't think the crippled thumb was a case of artist's inaptitude, it is much too delicately drawn for that, while the over-painted thumb, you prefer, is rather roughly done."
Marie observes:
Well I do think it is a case of ineptitude (and you yourself have argued strongly in the past for the general ineptitude of the NPG portrait). I have given the thumb in the NPG portrait more than a cursory glance and I cannot for the life of me see that it is clearly intended to be in front of the collar, so we'll just have to disagree.
Isn't a crippled thumb that is mentioned in none of the texts rather a bizarre thing for the artist to have decided to add to an otherwise normal portrait? And isn't it odd that Shakespeare fails to add this to his canon of deformities? And what a coincidence that it follows the line of the lapel! And what a further coincidence that we now have an example of the same portrait type in which Richard clearly is holding the lapel!
It's a mistake to suppose that each portrait *must* get further from the original the later it was painted since we have no idea just when the original was lost - all the major 16thC portraits could have been painted directly from the original with randomly varying degrees of accuracy.
Anyway I've made these points before and I see no point in continuing to go over old ground. All of us on this forum have a different take on the various portraits, and that is absolutely fine and proper as response is entirely subjective - yours, mine and everybody else's.
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva answers:
Yes , It is thought that the two earliest pictures, the SOA and RC pictures and finally the NPG picture, that is at least 60 years younger stem from the same original. They clearly show the same person, but a lot of differences too.There is no proof,that the original portrait was painted soley for sending it to possible marriages candidates. I doubt it, for in Richard's lifetime the interest in portraits grew. Rich merchants in Burgundy had their portraits painted. In fact it was a heyday for portrait painting in Burgundy. And as the Burgundian influence
on the the Yorkist Court was great, I think the English also liked to have their portraits made.
The SOA portrait is not only in MHO thought to be the best.
Pamela Tudor writes in the catalogue to the 1973 exhibition at the NPG:"I would, however, stress that the internal evidence points most strongly to its having been a faithful copy of a lost original painted in the sitter's lifetime. Apart fom the outstanding quality of the workmanship, there is the evidence of the collar....The threedimensionel quality of thuis collarcontrasts with thre flat arrangement of the one in the standard and its derivatesRoyal Collection portrait...."
I wanted to paste a second quote on the SOA portrait, but it got lost somehow. I will try again!
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Hurray, it worked this time!
This quote is the conclusion of an interesting article by Frederick Hepburn on Richard's portraiture on the Richard iii homepage.
I have seen the SOA portrait at the exhibition in Burlington House in July. It is a beautiful picture And for me it is the only one I will ever accept as Richard's likeness.
Eva
Sorry, I made some mistakes in my last post. It should read: ...the standard Royal Collection portrait and its
derivates ..."
There are others as well, I am afraid.
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
Regarding the eyes on the SOA portrait, for me they look intelligent, thoughtful and a little sad. No snakes
for me there.
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person. And I am sure he would not have agreed to publicize such an image of himself. It would have been political suicide.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara, actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin) make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection & NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes - they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Picture of Richard
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG portrait was the one that hung on my living room wall for many years before I downsized my home. I was quite impressed by it for years because of its importance in *The Daughter of Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws most portraits of the period are not perfect. It actually dates from the period in which the art of portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think, came to feel that the SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of Richard. I think that applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III Society, which used the SOA portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But when Richard's remains were discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait matched the skull quite closely amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go through. It is a new image of Richard which was created by morphing the facial reconstruction with the NPG portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of course, it focuses on the head, so we can't see what the artist would have done with the hands, but does that really matter?
If the attachment does not go through, contact me offlist, and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info as to who the artist is, unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara, actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin) make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection & NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes - they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Marie, Eva & Tamara
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG
portrait was the one that hung on my living room wall for many years before I
downsized my home. I was quite impressed by it for years because of its
importance in *The Daughter of Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws
most portraits of the period are not perfect. It actually dates from the
period in which the art of portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think,
came to feel that the SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of
Richard. I think that applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III
Society, which used the SOA portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But
when Richard's remains were discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait
matched the skull quite closely amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was
the NPG portrait which was primarily used in the facial reconstruction of
Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go
through. It is a new image of Richard which was created by morphing the facial
reconstruction with the NPG portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of
course, it focuses on the head, so we can't see what the artist would have done
with the hands, but does that really matter?
If the attachment does not
go through, contact me offlist, and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info
as to who the artist is, unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my
view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email -
jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
I know ,that some love
the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when
studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a
pathetic person."
Marie asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a
pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in
the same way as Tamara, actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines
(particularly the chin) make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of
the Royal Collection & NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem
with the eyes - they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact
that the lower lid is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face
doesn't help either because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never
thought of it like that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the
SoA portrait. So thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in
the eye of the beholder.
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Picture of Richard
Happy to send it to you (separately), Sandra!
And any info you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne.
The attachment didn't come through for me, Johanne, so if you could please send it to my sandramachin@... account, I'd be truly grateful. If it's the picture I think it may be, I can tell you at least a little about it.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Marie, Eva & Tamara
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG portrait was the one that hung on my living room wall for many years before I downsized my home. I was quite impressed by it for years because of its importance in *The Daughter of Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws most portraits of the period are not perfect. It actually dates from the period in which the art of portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think, came to feel that the SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of Richard. I think that applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III Society, which used the SOA portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But when Richard's remains were discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait matched the skull quite closely amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go through. It is a new image of Richard which was created by morphing the facial reconstruction with the NPG portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of course, it focuses on the head, so we can't see what the artist would have done with the hands, but does that really matter?
If the attachment does not go through, contact me offlist, and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info as to who the artist is, unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara, actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin) make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection & NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes - they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Picture of Richard
Happy to send it to you (separately), Sandra!
And any info you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August
11, 2014 10:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne.
The attachment didn't come through for me, Johanne, so if you could please send it to my sandramachin@... account, I'd be truly grateful. If it's the picture I think it may be, I can tell you at least a little about it.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Marie, Eva &
Tamara
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG portrait was the one that
hung on my living room wall for many years before I downsized my home. I was
quite impressed by it for years because of its importance in *The Daughter of
Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws most portraits of the period
are not perfect. It actually dates from the period in which the art of
portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively
recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think, came to feel that the
SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of Richard. I think that
applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III Society, which used the SOA
portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But when Richard's remains were
discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait matched the skull quite closely
amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was
primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go through. It is a new image of
Richard which was created by morphing the facial reconstruction with the NPG
portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of course, it focuses on the head, so
we can't see what the artist would have done with the hands, but does that
really matter?
If the attachment does not go through, contact me offlist,
and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info as to who the artist is,
unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my
view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva
wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't
understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I
can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie
asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm
a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara,
actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin)
make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection
& NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes -
they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid
is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either
because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like
that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So
thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the
beholder.
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Sandra
I am not sure where I first picked it up. I don't think I got it from the RIII Society website, but regardless I am glad to pass it on if it's no longer there. I wonder if the artist (Paul Ferguson?) claimed copyright on it.
Funny that he wouldn't get back to you, though. Hmmm . . .
Oh, yes, please send the returning glance version to me at my email jltournier60@... . I do collect portraits and caricatures of Richard, so will gladly add it to my collection!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne. Yes, it is the same picture. I found it online early last year, at http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ and posted it in the Portraits album on the RIII Society website. I tried to contact Paul Ferguson, but received no reply. A little later I did some fiddling with the picture, because I wanted to have Richard looking toward me. The original picture has now gone from the album, but the returning glance' is still there. I tried to contact Paul again, to say I was fiddling with his work, but still no reply. That's all I know about the morph' picture, except that I was the one who found and first posted it. The returning glance' version has now turned up in badge form (lapel, or something)!
I wish I could tell you more. If you'd like it, I can send you the returning glance' picture by attachment.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:15 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Happy to send it to you (separately), Sandra!
And any info you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:02 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne.
The attachment didn't come through for me, Johanne, so if you could please send it to my sandramachin@... account, I'd be truly grateful. If it's the picture I think it may be, I can tell you at least a little about it.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Marie, Eva & Tamara
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG portrait was the one that hung on my living room wall for many years before I downsized my home. I was quite impressed by it for years because of its importance in *The Daughter of Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws most portraits of the period are not perfect. It actually dates from the period in which the art of portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think, came to feel that the SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of Richard. I think that applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III Society, which used the SOA portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But when Richard's remains were discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait matched the skull quite closely amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go through. It is a new image of Richard which was created by morphing the facial reconstruction with the NPG portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of course, it focuses on the head, so we can't see what the artist would have done with the hands, but does that really matter?
If the attachment does not go through, contact me offlist, and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info as to who the artist is, unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara, actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin) make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection & NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes - they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the beholder.
Re: Picture of Richard
OK, with pathetic I mean ostentatiously suffering, arousing pity, looking like to weep at any moment.
His face is pale as if he never was outdoors and his eves are sunken like an old mans'.
I would not like that picture hanging on my wall. It is depressing to look at and not at all like I see Richard.
It is a Tudor interpretation anyway, so I do not bother, how Richard is depicted there.
It is true that the NPG portrait does not show Richard as a mean, cruel man. But by making him look so anxious and unhappy, the painter tries to make him look weak and unfit to rule.
Now I must ask you what nobblyness means. The Oxford Dictionary says "nobble" means either: tamper with a horse to prevent it from winning, or obtain dishonestly. I don't know what that has to do with the SOA portrait of Richard. And I can not see anything wizened in the face. The face is thin but the skin is young and firm.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Sandra
I am not sure where I first picked it up. I don't think I got it from the RIII Society website, but regardless I am glad to pass it on if it's no longer there. I wonder if the artist (Paul Ferguson?) claimed copyright on it.
Funny that he wouldn't get back to you, though. Hmmm . . .
Oh, yes, please send the returning glance version to me at my email jltournier60@... . I do collect portraits and caricatures of Richard, so will gladly add it to my collection!
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August
11, 2014 10:41 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne. Yes, it is the same picture. I found it online early last year, at http://www.tigerlight430.co.uk/ and posted it in the Portraits album on the RIII Society website. I tried to contact Paul Ferguson, but received no reply. A little later I did some fiddling with the picture, because I wanted to have Richard looking toward me. The original picture has now gone from the album, but the returning glance' is still there. I tried to contact Paul again, to say I was fiddling with his work, but still no reply. That's all I know about the morph' picture, except that I was the one who found and first posted it. The returning glance' version has now turned up in badge form (lapel, or something)!
I wish I could tell you more. If you'd like it, I can send you the returning glance' picture by attachment.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:15 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Happy to send it to you (separately), Sandra!
And any info you can give me would be greatly appreciated.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 10:02 AM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi Johanne.
The attachment didn't come through for me, Johanne, so if you could please send it to my sandramachin@... account, I'd be truly grateful. If it's the picture I think it may be, I can tell you at least a little about it.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 1:58 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Picture of Richard
Hi, Marie, Eva &
Tamara
Just to stick in my $.02 the NPG portrait was the one that
hung on my living room wall for many years before I downsized my home. I was
quite impressed by it for years because of its importance in *The Daughter of
Time.* So I didn't worry too much about its flaws most portraits of the period
are not perfect. It actually dates from the period in which the art of
portraiture was being developed, I understand.
Then, relatively
recently, I, along with a lot of other people, I think, came to feel that the
SOA portrait was likely a more faithful impression of Richard. I think that
applies to Annette Carson and also the Richard III Society, which used the SOA
portrait on the Bulletin for a number of issues. But when Richard's remains were
discovered, it was found that the NPG portrait matched the skull quite closely
amazingly closely in fact. As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was
primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws.
I am not sure the attachment will go through. It is a new image of
Richard which was created by morphing the facial reconstruction with the NPG
portrait, and I think it is simply lovely! Of course, it focuses on the head, so
we can't see what the artist would have done with the hands, but does that
really matter?
If the attachment does not go through, contact me offlist,
and I will send you a copy. BTW, I have no info as to who the artist is,
unfortunately. Whoever it is is very talented, in my
view.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne
L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
On Behalf Of mariewalsh2003
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:01 AM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Picture of Richard
Eva
wrote:
I know ,that some love the NPG portrait, which I again can't
understand. It looks so pathetic and when studying the facts of Richard's life I
can see no evidence that he was such a pathetic person."
Marie
asks:
Can you explain what you mean by a pathetic person? I'm afraid I'm
a bit lost.
I do see the SoA portrait in the same way as Tamara,
actually. I find the nobbliness of the facial outlines (particularly the chin)
make him look very old even without the deep wrinkles of the Royal Collection
& NPG portraits. And, yes, that's exactly the problem with the eyes -
they're rather reptilian; I think it's partly due to the fact that the lower lid
is too scooped out. The wizened nobbliness of the face doesn't help either
because that is also quite a reptilian characteristic. Never thought of it like
that before, but it my well be what turns me off about the SoA portrait. So
thanks, Tamara.
Just proves the point that it's all in the eye of the
beholder.
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
Re: Picture of Richard
"As a result, it was the NPG portrait which was primarily used in the facial reconstruction of Richard, despite its flaws."
Eva says:
I think it has been discussed earlier on that forum, that the proof of Prof. Wilkinson's superinposition of the scull on the two portraits does not prove much, as she should have superimposed the mirror image of the skull on the SOA portrait, as it is a mirror image of the other portraits. That means, the painter of the SOA painting just
turned the picture and did not have a original to copy, where Richard was actually sitting for an artist looking to the other side. That was the way it was done in those days. For me this is a pity and shows the lack of carefulness in creating the Facial reconstruction. The two ladies responsible should IMHO at least have sought some information from a specialist on the portraiture of Richard. What I think is, they just took the best known picture, added a little Laurence Olivier eyebrows, a hat that would have been worn in the 1520ties, straight hair, squinting eyes,.... I'll better stop my ranting.
Another aspect is, that though there probably was a master drawing with the right outlines of the face, that was used for the NPG painting ( or as some think, it was a copy of the RC one) that does not mean the details or the expression of the face can not wary considerably. And, as the NPG portrait is so much younger than the others, the fitting of the scull says nothing about its accuracy in showing Richard true face.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
Well I do think it is a case of ineptitude (and you yourself have argued strongly in the past for the general ineptitude of the NPG portrait). I have given the thumb in the NPG portrait more than a cursory glance and I cannot for the life of me see that it is clearly intended to be in front of the collar, so we'll just have to disagree.
Eva answers:
I did not argue that the thumb was in front of the collar, I meant in front of the fur lapel of the gown. But it
is not under the collor either, its tip just touches the collar.
As for the fact, that the crippled thumb is not mentioned in Shakespeare's play, we don't know if this portrait was earlier or later than Shakespeare's play, as we have no exact dates for for both. And why should not the painter have his own ideas about embellishing his picture with a nice new detail to disfigure Richard.?I can by no means see the NPG portrait as a normal portrait of a 32 year old man.
I stick to my arguments, as I am convinced of them, as you are probably of yours.
No harm intended
Eva
.
Re: Picture of Richard
Eva wrote of the NPG portrait:-
"OK, with pathetic I mean ostentatiously suffering ., arousing pity, looking like to weep at any moment.
His face is pale as if he never was outdoors [snip ]
Now I must ask you what nobblyness means."
Marie replies:
If this portrait really was painted after Anne's death, do you not think the suffering might have been genuine? I can't understand why anyone would *want* a Richard who was blithely unaffected - only a psychopath would have come through all the bereavements, ghastly accusations, etc, Richard had had thrown at him in a short space of time without becoming very unhappy. I don't see anything ostentatious about that look at all - quite the contrary: to me he looks lost in his own thoughts. Yes, you can call that weakness, but it's a trait that had, in better times, been his strength because it was the source of his drive to make things better. Sorry you find him depressing - the last parts of his story are depressing, though, aren't they? And what sort of person is fit to rule?
As for the pale face - the face in the SoA portrait is at least as pale if not paler. Anyway, Crowland said that on the morning of Bosworth "his face, which was always drawn, was then even more pale and deathly" so perhaps he really was very fair skinned. Some of us just don't tan, you know.
*All* the surviving portraits are Tudor interpretations, even the SoA, which slightly postdates the writing of More's and Vergil's hatchet jobs on RIII. The NPG portrait is very very close to the Royal Collection portrait, which is now dated to between 1504 and 1520, and indeed may have been directly copied from it as it incorporates the raised shoulder which was added on to the RC portrait after it was completed. We can't make any sensible comments on the expression in the RC portrait until it's been cleaned up - we know the mouth was also altered. I think someone once posted an image of the x ray on the forum showing the tracing underneath - I was interested to see that the wrinkles are present on the tracing, and if you look closely at the SoA portrait you will see that those same lines are suggested, just more subtly. So they probably do represent something going on with Richard's face in real life, but how deep they were meant to be is not clear. If Richard was fair-skinned he will almost inevitably have been sunburnt quite a lot, and that would tend to age the skin prematurely.
And nobbliness is same as knobbliness - in fact I originally spelled it knobbliness but yahoo's spell checker didn't like it. Now it doesn't like either. Like knobbly knees.
Oh, and before I forget, thank you to Sandra for reposting that lovely combined image. I'd been looking for it a while ago and couldn't find it, and I didn't realise it had been posted to files.
Re: Picture of Richard
Re: Picture of Richard
"OK, with pathetic I mean ostentatiously suffering, arousing pity, looking like to weep at any moment.
"His face is pale as if he never was outdoors and his eves are sunken like an old mans'.
I would not like that picture hanging on my wall. It is depressing to look at and not at all like I see Richard.
"It is a Tudor interpretation anyway, so I do not bother, how Richard is depicted there.
It is true that the NPG portrait does not show Richard as a mean, cruel man. But by making him look so anxious and unhappy, the painter tries to make him look weak and unfit to rule.
Now I must ask you what nobblyness means. The Oxford Dictionary says "nobble" means either: tamper with a horse to prevent it from winning, or obtain dishonestly. I don't know what that has to do with the SOA portrait of Richard. And I can not see anything wizened in the face. The face is thin but the skin is young and firm."
Carol responds:
As Marie says, it's all subjective. Yes, the NPG portrait makes him look older than he was, but I think it's a sympathetic portrait with a kind, intelligent, thoughtful expression, much better than the cruel, deliberately altered Royal Collection portrait, which is obviously intended to make him look like a murdering tyrant. I've never liked the SoA portrait, possibly because the cloth of gold outfit is ghastly, but also because of the expression. I have no opinion on the skill of the various artists, only on the emotional effect of the portraits.
I just saw the NPG portrait face to face and still regard it fondly.
I forgot to mention that I also saw the Wilkinson head, which I expected to like, but it was placed at the eye level of a five-year-old child and I almost missed it. Maybe I would have felt something if I had seen it eye to eye and could have viewed it from various angles, but I felt nothing at all (possibly because I was still out of sorts from the horrible, half-naked back view of "Richard" as he supposedly appeared to his armorer). I would have missed the head altogether if my sister hadn't pointed it out.
Carol
Re: Picture of Richard
resemble each other in a way, the recreation does not look typically like Richard to me.
Eva
Re: Picture of Richard
On Wed, 8/20/14, eva.pitter@... [] <> wrote:
Subject: Re: Picture of Richard
To:
Date: Wednesday, August 20, 2014, 10:44 PM
I quite like this image of the reconstruction. I also find the most famous portraits of Richard to be more attractive than those of other Medieval figures. The ones I have seen of Edward IV for example don't convey the famous good looks. You also don't get a sense of a powerful, decisive leader.
As you say, Carol, it is all subjective. The
strange thing for me is only, that what you see in the NPG
portrait, namely a kind, intelligent and thoughtful
expression is also evident for me in the SOA portrait.And it
shows a good looking young man too. But as I cannot convince
everyone of my persuasion, I have to accept than some like
the NPG picture better. Even if I cannot comprehend it. I
had no chance to see the Wilkinson Head as yet, only the
photographs, some of which look really horrible, taken
from very akward angles, so that the head looks distorted.
The most likeable pictures of the head for me are the two
pictures Sandra made at the Gloucester exhibition. But as
the NPG and the SOA portrait IMHO
resemble
each other in a way, the recreation does not look typically
like Richard to me.
Eva
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846 --
#yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px
0;padding:0 10px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp hr {
border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp #yiv7985826846hd {
color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px
0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp #yiv7985826846ads {
margin-bottom:10px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp .yiv7985826846ad {
padding:0 0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp .yiv7985826846ad p {
margin:0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mkp .yiv7985826846ad a {
color:#0000ff;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7985826846ygrp-lc {
font-family:Arial;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7985826846ygrp-lc #yiv7985826846hd {
margin:10px
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor
#yiv7985826846ygrp-lc .yiv7985826846ad {
margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846actions {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity {
background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity span {
font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity span:first-child {
text-transform:uppercase;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity span a {
color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity span span {
color:#ff7900;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846activity span
.yiv7985826846underline {
text-decoration:underline;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846attach {
clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px
0;width:400px;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846attach div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846attach img {
border:none;padding-right:5px;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846attach label {
display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846attach label a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 blockquote {
margin:0 0 0 4px;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846bold {
font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846bold a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 dd.yiv7985826846last p a {
font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 dd.yiv7985826846last p span {
margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 dd.yiv7985826846last p
span.yiv7985826846yshortcuts {
margin-right:0;}
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846attach-table div div a {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846attach-table {
width:400px;}
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846file-title a, #yiv7985826846
div.yiv7985826846file-title a:active, #yiv7985826846
div.yiv7985826846file-title a:hover, #yiv7985826846
div.yiv7985826846file-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846photo-title a,
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846photo-title a:active,
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846photo-title a:hover,
#yiv7985826846 div.yiv7985826846photo-title a:visited {
text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 div#yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg
#yiv7985826846ygrp-msg p a span.yiv7985826846yshortcuts {
font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846green {
color:#628c2a;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846MsoNormal {
margin:0 0 0 0;}
#yiv7985826846 o {
font-size:0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846photos div {
float:left;width:72px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846photos div div {
border:1px solid
#666666;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846photos div label {
color:#666666;font-size:10px;overflow:hidden;text-align:center;white-space:nowrap;width:64px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846reco-category {
font-size:77%;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846reco-desc {
font-size:77%;}
#yiv7985826846 .yiv7985826846replbq {
margin:4px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-actbar div a:first-child {
margin-right:2px;padding-right:5px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg {
font-size:13px;font-family:Arial, helvetica, clean,
sans-serif;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg table {
font-size:inherit;font:100%;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg select,
#yiv7985826846 input, #yiv7985826846 textarea {
font:99% Arial, Helvetica, clean, sans-serif;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg pre, #yiv7985826846
code {
font:115% monospace;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg * {
line-height:1.22em;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-mlmsg #yiv7985826846logo {
padding-bottom:10px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-msg p a {
font-family:Verdana;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-msg
p#yiv7985826846attach-count span {
color:#1E66AE;font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-reco
#yiv7985826846reco-head {
color:#ff7900;font-weight:700;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-reco {
margin-bottom:20px;padding:0px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor #yiv7985826846ov
li a {
font-size:130%;text-decoration:none;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor #yiv7985826846ov
li {
font-size:77%;list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-sponsor #yiv7985826846ov
ul {
margin:0;padding:0 0 0 8px;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-text {
font-family:Georgia;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-text p {
margin:0 0 1em 0;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-text tt {
font-size:120%;}
#yiv7985826846 #yiv7985826846ygrp-vital ul li:last-child {
border-right:none !important;
}
#yiv7985826846
