Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-30 19:04:56
Forgive me if this has been covered previously (I'm not keeping up
with the posts these days, as I'm writing), but you can access the
full article in The Lancet that discusses Richard's scoliosis if you
register at thelancet.com .
At the moment the link to the article is featured on the home page.
Accompanying the short article are the following supplementary materials:
* 2 supplementary videos
* 1 audio file
You can also download all the materials as The Lancet has provided
links to do so. If the download buttons don't work, simply right-click
and save the link to your desktop.
There is a three-dimensional, moving image of Richard's spine in one
of the videos. The degree of curvature doesn't look nearly as bad as
the image of the bones in the grave, and the writers make a point to
say that the curvature would not have interfered with his movement --
including fighting.
The expert on one of the videos also makes a point of saying that
Shakespeare's presentation of Richard as hunchbacked and walking with
a limp is "Tudor spin."
~Weds
with the posts these days, as I'm writing), but you can access the
full article in The Lancet that discusses Richard's scoliosis if you
register at thelancet.com .
At the moment the link to the article is featured on the home page.
Accompanying the short article are the following supplementary materials:
* 2 supplementary videos
* 1 audio file
You can also download all the materials as The Lancet has provided
links to do so. If the download buttons don't work, simply right-click
and save the link to your desktop.
There is a three-dimensional, moving image of Richard's spine in one
of the videos. The degree of curvature doesn't look nearly as bad as
the image of the bones in the grave, and the writers make a point to
say that the curvature would not have interfered with his movement --
including fighting.
The expert on one of the videos also makes a point of saying that
Shakespeare's presentation of Richard as hunchbacked and walking with
a limp is "Tudor spin."
~Weds
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-30 19:21:01
Yes, I read the entire thing and loved the debunking of Tudor mythology!
On May 30, 2014, at 1:04 PM, "Wednesday Mac
wednesday.mac@... []" <> wrote:
Forgive me if this has been covered previously (I'm not keeping up
with the posts these days, as I'm writing), but you can access the
full article in The Lancet that discusses Richard's scoliosis if you
register at thelancet.com .
At the moment the link to the article is featured on the home page.
Accompanying the short article are the following supplementary materials:
* 2 supplementary videos
* 1 audio file
You can also download all the materials as The Lancet has provided
links to do so. If the download buttons don't work, simply right-click
and save the link to your desktop.
There is a three-dimensional, moving image of Richard's spine in one
of the videos. The degree of curvature doesn't look nearly as bad as
the image of the bones in the grave, and the writers make a point to
say that the curvature would not have interfered with his movement --
including fighting.
The expert on one of the videos also makes a point of saying that
Shakespeare's presentation of Richard as hunchbacked and walking with
a limp is "Tudor spin."
~Weds
On May 30, 2014, at 1:04 PM, "Wednesday Mac
wednesday.mac@... []" <> wrote:
Forgive me if this has been covered previously (I'm not keeping up
with the posts these days, as I'm writing), but you can access the
full article in The Lancet that discusses Richard's scoliosis if you
register at thelancet.com .
At the moment the link to the article is featured on the home page.
Accompanying the short article are the following supplementary materials:
* 2 supplementary videos
* 1 audio file
You can also download all the materials as The Lancet has provided
links to do so. If the download buttons don't work, simply right-click
and save the link to your desktop.
There is a three-dimensional, moving image of Richard's spine in one
of the videos. The degree of curvature doesn't look nearly as bad as
the image of the bones in the grave, and the writers make a point to
say that the curvature would not have interfered with his movement --
including fighting.
The expert on one of the videos also makes a point of saying that
Shakespeare's presentation of Richard as hunchbacked and walking with
a limp is "Tudor spin."
~Weds
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-30 20:41:07
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-30 21:33:49
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-30 22:30:55
Jan here.Is this image from the Daily Mail meant to reflect his position in his grave? Just a thought. From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> To: Sent: Friday, 30 May 2014, 21:33 Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 12:28:57
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent:
Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
From:
'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>;
To:
<>;
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent:
Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not
have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D
photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in
such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other?
Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press
conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new
research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will
still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known
all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather
negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk
would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3
or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore
precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 12:35:30
<g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 14:28:21
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
From: Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 14:38:01
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 15:34:39
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=Jess
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 14:38To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 14:38To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 15:51:23
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 16:04:01
Mustn't forget Ye Myddleham Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile
news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 17:22:39
Jan wrote:Is this image from the Daily Mail meant to reflect his position in his grave? Just a thought.Thank you, Jan, for your explanation. When looking at the picture again I am certain it is the position of the skeleton in the grave. Still I would have liked to see a replica of the skeleton standing erect. the spine aloneeven if I can turn it around does not tell me much about how it would have looked with the thorax around it.Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 17:30:48
Agreed, Eva, and when they keep producing items here and there, but never
together, it makes you wonder why? Why can't they confer and get the poor man in
one piece again? Are they all busily guarding their research. Understandable, I
suppose, but surely one bright spark somewhere could assemble him for us on a
computer screen? I know his feet have gone forever, but even so. A long robe or
a pair of thigh boots would sort that once he was dressed'. I get so
cross about it.
This is a Saturday afternoon moan, I fear. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Jan wrote:Is this image from the Daily Mail meant to reflect his
position in his grave? Just a thought.Thank you, Jan, for your
explanation. When looking at the picture again I am certain it is the position
of the skeleton in the grave. Still I would have liked to see a replica of the
skeleton standing erect. the spine aloneeven if I can turn it around does
not tell me much about how it would have looked with the thorax around
it.Eva
together, it makes you wonder why? Why can't they confer and get the poor man in
one piece again? Are they all busily guarding their research. Understandable, I
suppose, but surely one bright spark somewhere could assemble him for us on a
computer screen? I know his feet have gone forever, but even so. A long robe or
a pair of thigh boots would sort that once he was dressed'. I get so
cross about it.
This is a Saturday afternoon moan, I fear. <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 5:22 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Jan wrote:Is this image from the Daily Mail meant to reflect his
position in his grave? Just a thought.Thank you, Jan, for your
explanation. When looking at the picture again I am certain it is the position
of the skeleton in the grave. Still I would have liked to see a replica of the
skeleton standing erect. the spine aloneeven if I can turn it around does
not tell me much about how it would have looked with the thorax around
it.Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 18:18:40
Oooooh! Sandra!
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 16:04To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Mustn't forget Ye Myddleham Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 14:38To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
[The entire original message is not included.]
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []Sent: 31/05/2014 16:04To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Mustn't forget Ye Myddleham Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 14:38To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From: mailto:Sent: 31/05/2014 12:29To: Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe? "Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... [] <>; To: <>; Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his height?Eva
[The entire original message is not included.]
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 18:25:23
An improvement on the Croyland Chronicle.Jan. On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Mustn't forget Ye Myddleham Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile
news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?"Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Mustn't forget Ye Myddleham Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile
news and information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke
Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel. The Westminster Crier. Oh, I could
get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he
browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very
far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people. <g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?"Not the 'Daily
Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that
question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From: 'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []
<>; To:
<>; Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014
8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight
curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely could
not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are
the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are
we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine)
depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher
than the other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I
remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where
they stated, the skeleton they foundhad scoliosis not
kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I
fear thatpeople who don't want to see the truth will still
talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that
sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm
and that is a lot. And why can they not bemore precise
about his height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 18:32:56
Maybe the
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the monkey?
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham Mercurye,
a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More
Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the
Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 14:38
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 12:29
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?
"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely
could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than
the other? Why does it not show him standing erect?
I remember the first press conference of the University of
Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they found
had scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear that
people who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning nature
have known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.
Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.
A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not be
more precise about his height?
Eva
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the monkey?
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham Mercurye,
a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More
Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the
Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 14:38
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 12:29
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?
"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely
could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than
the other? Why does it not show him standing erect?
I remember the first press conference of the University of
Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they found
had scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear that
people who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning nature
have known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.
Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.
A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not be
more precise about his height?
Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 18:48:10
Sandra wrote:
> But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Weds writes:
It's even worse than that. He never tasted chocolate.
--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its
cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain
> But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Weds writes:
It's even worse than that. He never tasted chocolate.
--
None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain-pen, or half its
cussedness; but we can try - Mark Twain
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 19:09:34
I thought I posted the result, Pamela. I hope I didn't miss this forum! Not
intentional, honest. Yes, he was named Crumplin, because (apparently) the tomb
of Edward of Middleham at Sheriff Hutton was referred to locally as Little
Crumplin', Crumplin is an affectionate name for someone with a crooked/not
straight back. So, presumably Richard was Crumplin and his son was
therefore Little Crumplin. Maybe he was showing signs of developing scoliosis
too? Hadn't thought of that. Anyway, Roy Thompson, the churchwarden at Sheriff
Hutton, who has lived there for thirty years now, said that when he first
arrived there, the local people called the tomb Little Crumplin. So, not a nasty
name at all, but Henry might think it a great wheeze to call his monkey
indirectly after Richard. Two ladies on the BOARs site won. The first lady
suggested a similar name, but the second lady then went on to provide the
winner. So they had a book each. Crumplin is well and truly named. I gather it
is a surname as well, but didn't know that when I chose the name.
As for the York Yuck shame on you! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Maybe the
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the
monkey?
From:
[mailto: ] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25
PMTo:
Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland
Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[]" <>
wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham
Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile news and
information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay
Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't
have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary,
or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
Not sure how far
to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even
Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to
believe?"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an
incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30,
2014 8:33:43 PM
Well,
something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a
slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and
surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down
further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the
big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Friday, May
30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
But why is
the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such
an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the
other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first
press conference of the University of
Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation
this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see
the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more
discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I
know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A
few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is
a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his
height?Eva
intentional, honest. Yes, he was named Crumplin, because (apparently) the tomb
of Edward of Middleham at Sheriff Hutton was referred to locally as Little
Crumplin', Crumplin is an affectionate name for someone with a crooked/not
straight back. So, presumably Richard was Crumplin and his son was
therefore Little Crumplin. Maybe he was showing signs of developing scoliosis
too? Hadn't thought of that. Anyway, Roy Thompson, the churchwarden at Sheriff
Hutton, who has lived there for thirty years now, said that when he first
arrived there, the local people called the tomb Little Crumplin. So, not a nasty
name at all, but Henry might think it a great wheeze to call his monkey
indirectly after Richard. Two ladies on the BOARs site won. The first lady
suggested a similar name, but the second lady then went on to provide the
winner. So they had a book each. Crumplin is well and truly named. I gather it
is a surname as well, but didn't know that when I chose the name.
As for the York Yuck shame on you! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Maybe the
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the
monkey?
From:
[mailto: ] Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25
PMTo:
Subject: Re:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland
Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[]" <>
wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham
Mercurye, a fount of all worthwhile news and
information. =^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
More Ye Olde Fotheringhay
Dyspatch! Or the Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't
have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary,
or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
Well.......at
least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily
Mail!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
14:38To:
Subject:
Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
Not sure how far
to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even
Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31,
2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject: RE: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
I do hope that
Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=Jess
From:
mailto:Sent:
31/05/2014
12:29To:
Subject:
Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to
believe?"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an
incontrovertible answer to that question.JonathanSent from Yahoo
Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's
Scoliosis Sent: Fri, May 30,
2014 8:33:43 PM
Well,
something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html
and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a
slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and
surely could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down
further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the
big picture. Who are we supposed to
believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Friday, May
30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject: [Richard III
Society Forum] Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing
Richard's Scoliosis
But why is
the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such
an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than the
other? Why does it not show him standing erect? I remember the first
press conference of the University of
Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they
foundhad scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation
this new research offers. I fear thatpeople who don't want to see
the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more
discerning naturehave known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I
know that sounds rather negative.Another thing that bothers me, is
when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.A
few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is
a lot. And why can they not bemore precise about his
height?Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 19:12:41
Sorry, I could not resist. I like the name....
On May 31, 2014, at 1:09 PM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I thought I posted the result, Pamela. I hope I didn't miss this forum! Not intentional, honest. Yes, he was named Crumplin, because (apparently) the tomb of Edward of Middleham at Sheriff Hutton was referred to locally as Little Crumplin', Crumplin is
an affectionate name for someone with a crooked/not straight back. So, presumably Richard was Crumplin and his son was therefore Little Crumplin. Maybe he was showing signs of developing scoliosis too? Hadn't thought of that. Anyway, Roy Thompson, the churchwarden
at Sheriff Hutton, who has lived there for thirty years now, said that when he first arrived there, the local people called the tomb Little Crumplin. So, not a nasty name at all, but Henry might think it a great wheeze to call his monkey indirectly after Richard.
Two ladies on the BOARs site won. The first lady suggested a similar name, but the second lady then went on to provide the winner. So they had a book each. Crumplin is well and truly named. I gather it is a surname as well, but didn't know that when I chose
the name.
As for the York Yuck shame on you! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Maybe the
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the monkey?
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham Mercurye,
a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More
Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the
Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 14:38
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 12:29
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?
"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely
could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than
the other? Why does it not show him standing erect?
I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they found
had scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear that
people who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning nature
have known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.
Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.
A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not be
more precise about his height?
Eva
On May 31, 2014, at 1:09 PM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I thought I posted the result, Pamela. I hope I didn't miss this forum! Not intentional, honest. Yes, he was named Crumplin, because (apparently) the tomb of Edward of Middleham at Sheriff Hutton was referred to locally as Little Crumplin', Crumplin is
an affectionate name for someone with a crooked/not straight back. So, presumably Richard was Crumplin and his son was therefore Little Crumplin. Maybe he was showing signs of developing scoliosis too? Hadn't thought of that. Anyway, Roy Thompson, the churchwarden
at Sheriff Hutton, who has lived there for thirty years now, said that when he first arrived there, the local people called the tomb Little Crumplin. So, not a nasty name at all, but Henry might think it a great wheeze to call his monkey indirectly after Richard.
Two ladies on the BOARs site won. The first lady suggested a similar name, but the second lady then went on to provide the winner. So they had a book each. Crumplin is well and truly named. I gather it is a surname as well, but didn't know that when I chose
the name.
As for the York Yuck shame on you! <g>
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:32 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Maybe the
York Yuck! Sandra did you name the monkey?
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 12:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
An improvement on the Croyland Chronicle.
Jan.
On 31 May 2014, at 16:03, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Mustn't forget
Ye Myddleham Mercurye,
a fount of all worthwhile news and information. =^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:51 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
More
Ye Olde Fotheringhay Dyspatch! Or the
Weekley Yorke Tymes. The Leycester Minstrel.
The Westminster Crier.
Oh, I could get carried away. But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt advice.
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 3:34 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Well.......at least we know it wouldn't have been possible for him to be reading the Daily Mail!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 14:38
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Not sure how far to the left kings were prepared to lean, Jess. Not very far, I fancy, even Richard with his concern for the people.
<g>
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:28 PM
To:
Subject:
RE: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
I do hope that Richard is not going to start leaning to the right!=
Jess
From:
mailto:
Sent:
31/05/2014 12:29
To:
Subject:
Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
> Who are we supposed to believe?
"Not the 'Daily Mail'" will always be an incontrovertible answer to that question.
Jonathan
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From:
'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... [] <> ;
To: <> ;
Subject: Re: Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sent: Fri, May 30, 2014 8:33:43 PM
Well, something is wrong or someone is wrong. Go to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2643056/Richard-III-wasnt-hunchback-did-scoliosis-scans-reveal.html and look at the large picture of Richard to his hips. That is NOT a slight curve, nor is it well balanced. He's all over to his left and surely
could not have walked normally if he was like that. Yet down further down are the new 3D photographs of his spine. Nothing like the big picture. Who are we supposed to believe?
Sandra
=^..^=
From:
mailto:
Sent:
Friday, May 30, 2014 8:41 PM
To:
Subject:
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
But why is the 3D Replica of Richard's skeleton ( not the spine) depicted in such an stooped,twisted position with one shoulder much higher than
the other? Why does it not show him standing erect?
I remember the first press conference of the University of Leicester where they stated, the skeleton they found
had scoliosis not kyphosis. So I wonder what great revelation this new research offers. I fear that
people who don't want to see the truth will still talk of h....ck king, and those of a more discerning nature
have known all the time that he was not. Sorry, I know that sounds rather negative.
Another thing that bothers me, is when they say Richard's trunk would have been a few inches shorter.
A few inches! What are a few inches 3 or 4? 4 inches are 10cm and that is a lot. And why can they not be
more precise about his height?
Eva
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-05-31 19:21:38
Oh. That poor, poor king. Fate was even nastier to him than I ever
imagined. Sniff. I can't bear it. Must find the Kleenex... No! The Cadbury's
Dairy Milk. I fear I'm a peasant at heart. None of your posh hand-mades for
me.
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sandra wrote: > But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee
as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt
advice.Weds writes:It's even worse than that. He never tasted
chocolate.-- None of us can have as many virtues as the
fountain-pen, or half itscussedness; but we can try - Mark
Twain
imagined. Sniff. I can't bear it. Must find the Kleenex... No! The Cadbury's
Dairy Milk. I fear I'm a peasant at heart. None of your posh hand-mades for
me.
From: mailto:
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2014 6:48 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Access to the Full Lancet
Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
Sandra wrote: > But the poor man couldn't have a cup of tea or coffee
as he browsed the latest Lancastrian gossip diary, or MB's Agony Aunt
advice.Weds writes:It's even worse than that. He never tasted
chocolate.-- None of us can have as many virtues as the
fountain-pen, or half itscussedness; but we can try - Mark
Twain
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-06-01 12:34:22
The full pic of Richard is I believe the position of his skeleton in the grave, I wondered about it until I saw the hand position if you look at the position of the hands they are in the position they were in the grave.Christine.
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-06-01 12:57:37
I saw the position of the hands, but because the whole article was
suggestive of new' 3D pictures, I thought... Well, it doesn't matter what I
thought, because I was wrong. I suppose the picture is new and is
3D, but it gives a wholly inappropriate impression of the well balanced'
spine we now know he had and which the article is all about. Now I'm annoyed
with myself, and certainly annoyed with them for being somewhat
misleading.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 12:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
The full pic of Richard is I believe the position of his skeleton in the
grave, I wondered about it until I saw the hand position if you look at the
position of the hands they are in the position they were in the grave.
Christine.
suggestive of new' 3D pictures, I thought... Well, it doesn't matter what I
thought, because I was wrong. I suppose the picture is new and is
3D, but it gives a wholly inappropriate impression of the well balanced'
spine we now know he had and which the article is all about. Now I'm annoyed
with myself, and certainly annoyed with them for being somewhat
misleading.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2014 12:34 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Access to the Full
Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
The full pic of Richard is I believe the position of his skeleton in the
grave, I wondered about it until I saw the hand position if you look at the
position of the hands they are in the position they were in the grave.
Christine.
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-06-01 13:13:04
Yes It's very annoying and misleading to publish it the way they have done. Many people will think that that is the way Richard stood which is totally incorrect. Just in my opinion the sort of misleading stuff to come out of Leicester Uni.Christine
Re: Access to the Full Lancet Article Discussing Richard's Scoliosis
2014-06-01 16:58:02
It was the Daily Mail, not Leicester Uni, that mislead us with the caption talking of the well balanced spine under the picture of the skeleton's twisted position in the grave.Eva
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.