A scientific report on baldness

I read that a man's hairline is actually inherited through his mother
and maternal grandfather.
Sadly, Richard and his brothers are not good examples, he died at 32,
Clarence at 28 and Edward IV at 40-41 .
In the next century there was a monarch who seems to have had male
pattern baldness despite being. Do we know anything about Anne Boleyn's
father?

Sorry if this sounds a little desperate.

Many historians also attribute Elizabeth's receding hairline (if indeed we
accept that it was receding and not her natural line - some debate on that as
well) to the same source that plagued many other woman at the time - a lead
based make-up that was particularly fashionable. It served to give the fair
complexion (in the original 16th C meaning of "fair" as used by Shakespeare).
The level of lead used would be quite sufficient to cause extreme hair loss
after a while.

Diomedes

--- In , diomedes5465@a...
wrote:
> Many historians also attribute Elizabeth's receding hairline (if
indeed we
> accept that it was receding and not her natural line - some debate
on that as
> well) to the same source that plagued many other woman at the time -
a lead
> based make-up that was particularly fashionable. It served to
give the fair
> complexion (in the original 16th C meaning of "fair" as used by
Shakespeare).
> The level of lead used would be quite sufficient to cause extreme
hair loss
> after a while.


Could be. I do think, though, that in reading material from another
culture or time, we have to keep in mind that if something is
remarked upon, it is remarkable. (As opposed to our own time, when
there is so much print and air-time to be filled that the most
miniscule and ordinary is sometimes remarked upon at length.)

With that yardstick in mind, then the state of Elizabeth's hair was
unusual...if hair loss was a common result of a heavy hand with
cosmetics, or of smallpox, it probably would not have been
mentioned. Or if mentioned because she was a queen and thus of
interest, not mentioned so many times. And I'd expect to see
a "cause and effect" remark every once in a while, in the vein
of "she is so vain of her face that her hair is suffering," or
linking her severe bout of smallpox with the condition of her hair.
There are other cause-and-effect remarks that contemporaries made
about her love of sweets leaving her with few, blackened, teeth in
her later years, and of her face showing smallpox scars.

Similarly, using the remarked upon = remarkable principle, I find
Paul Murray Kendall's explanation of Richard's purported uneven
shoulders absurd. He says Richard practiced with a heavy sword so
long and diligently, as a youth, that one arm and shoulder developed
more musculature than the other. If that were true, then every old
soldier would look like that (since they had better practice long and
diligently with a sword, and did so for military careers that lasted
decades), not to mention every longbow archer, and it would not be
remarkable and we'd never have heard of Richard having uneven
shoulders. And besides, while Richard probably could handle a sword
(or it would have been rearked upon, since most men could) his battle
weapon of choice seems to have been the ax.

I know some don't believe he did, and that it was slander by his
enemies. In the first place, having uneven shoulders is not
shameful...if the Tudors or Lancastrians had wanted to assign a
negative physical defect to him, wouldn't they have picked one that
suggested shame or evil, and in a place that couldn't be checked out
by the common folk, like maybe three testicles, or none, or a
birthmark in a hideous shape, or a big hairy mole on his butt? And
there is that lack of cause and effect...the shoulders are mentioned
in passing, or as part of a general description of the man.

The hunchback business, remember, came later and it obviously is
meant to slander, since in the Medieval mindset a twisted body
betrays a twisted mind, and vice versa. We get the withered arm
business from More, and that says enough. More was never one for
moderation...he writes purple prose. Wasn't it More who said Richard
was two years in the womb and was born with teeth and hair down to
his shoulders? What, no forked tail?

Personally -- and I know this will offend some members of this
group -- I think Richard did have uneven shoulders. And so what? It
didn't seem to affect his ability to do anything required of him. It
was just a physical characteristic.

Katy

I am wondering - was it ever mentioned in his actual lifetime that he had uneven
shoulders?
Eileen





--- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , diomedes5465@a...
> wrote:
> > Many historians also attribute Elizabeth's receding hairline (if
> indeed we
> > accept that it was receding and not her natural line - some debate
> on that as
> > well) to the same source that plagued many other woman at the time -
> a lead
> > based make-up that was particularly fashionable. It served to
> give the fair
> > complexion (in the original 16th C meaning of "fair" as used by
> Shakespeare).
> > The level of lead used would be quite sufficient to cause extreme
> hair loss
> > after a while.
>
>
> Could be. I do think, though, that in reading material from another
> culture or time, we have to keep in mind that if something is
> remarked upon, it is remarkable. (As opposed to our own time, when
> there is so much print and air-time to be filled that the most
> miniscule and ordinary is sometimes remarked upon at length.)
>
> With that yardstick in mind, then the state of Elizabeth's hair was
> unusual...if hair loss was a common result of a heavy hand with
> cosmetics, or of smallpox, it probably would not have been
> mentioned. Or if mentioned because she was a queen and thus of
> interest, not mentioned so many times. And I'd expect to see
> a "cause and effect" remark every once in a while, in the vein
> of "she is so vain of her face that her hair is suffering," or
> linking her severe bout of smallpox with the condition of her hair.
> There are other cause-and-effect remarks that contemporaries made
> about her love of sweets leaving her with few, blackened, teeth in
> her later years, and of her face showing smallpox scars.
>
> Similarly, using the remarked upon = remarkable principle, I find
> Paul Murray Kendall's explanation of Richard's purported uneven
> shoulders absurd. He says Richard practiced with a heavy sword so
> long and diligently, as a youth, that one arm and shoulder developed
> more musculature than the other. If that were true, then every old
> soldier would look like that (since they had better practice long and
> diligently with a sword, and did so for military careers that lasted
> decades), not to mention every longbow archer, and it would not be
> remarkable and we'd never have heard of Richard having uneven
> shoulders. And besides, while Richard probably could handle a sword
> (or it would have been rearked upon, since most men could) his battle
> weapon of choice seems to have been the ax.
>
> I know some don't believe he did, and that it was slander by his
> enemies. In the first place, having uneven shoulders is not
> shameful...if the Tudors or Lancastrians had wanted to assign a
> negative physical defect to him, wouldn't they have picked one that
> suggested shame or evil, and in a place that couldn't be checked out
> by the common folk, like maybe three testicles, or none, or a
> birthmark in a hideous shape, or a big hairy mole on his butt? And
> there is that lack of cause and effect...the shoulders are mentioned
> in passing, or as part of a general description of the man.
>
> The hunchback business, remember, came later and it obviously is
> meant to slander, since in the Medieval mindset a twisted body
> betrays a twisted mind, and vice versa. We get the withered arm
> business from More, and that says enough. More was never one for
> moderation...he writes purple prose. Wasn't it More who said Richard
> was two years in the womb and was born with teeth and hair down to
> his shoulders? What, no forked tail?
>
> Personally -- and I know this will offend some members of this
> group -- I think Richard did have uneven shoulders. And so what? It
> didn't seem to affect his ability to do anything required of him. It
> was just a physical characteristic.
>
> Katy

I recall that the famous portrait of him has been X-rayed and that
the uneven shoulders were added after the original portrait.

Returning to the original topic, I have wondered what sort of
hairline is hidden beneath that hat - it may be just due to a lack
of skill of the painter's, but the way Richard's hair falls on each
side of the hat suggests to me that he may not have had a lot on
top.

Richard G

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> I am wondering - was it ever mentioned in his actual lifetime that
he had uneven
> shoulders?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
<no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In , diomedes5465@a...
> > wrote:
> > > Many historians also attribute Elizabeth's receding hairline
(if
> > indeed we
> > > accept that it was receding and not her natural line - some
debate
> > on that as
> > > well) to the same source that plagued many other woman at the
time -
> > a lead
> > > based make-up that was particularly fashionable. It served to
> > give the fair
> > > complexion (in the original 16th C meaning of "fair" as used
by
> > Shakespeare).
> > > The level of lead used would be quite sufficient to cause
extreme
> > hair loss
> > > after a while.
> >
> >
> > Could be. I do think, though, that in reading material from
another
> > culture or time, we have to keep in mind that if something is
> > remarked upon, it is remarkable. (As opposed to our own time,
when
> > there is so much print and air-time to be filled that the most
> > miniscule and ordinary is sometimes remarked upon at length.)
> >
> > With that yardstick in mind, then the state of Elizabeth's hair
was
> > unusual...if hair loss was a common result of a heavy hand with
> > cosmetics, or of smallpox, it probably would not have been
> > mentioned. Or if mentioned because she was a queen and thus of
> > interest, not mentioned so many times. And I'd expect to see
> > a "cause and effect" remark every once in a while, in the vein
> > of "she is so vain of her face that her hair is suffering," or
> > linking her severe bout of smallpox with the condition of her
hair.
> > There are other cause-and-effect remarks that contemporaries
made
> > about her love of sweets leaving her with few, blackened, teeth
in
> > her later years, and of her face showing smallpox scars.
> >
> > Similarly, using the remarked upon = remarkable principle, I
find
> > Paul Murray Kendall's explanation of Richard's purported uneven
> > shoulders absurd. He says Richard practiced with a heavy sword
so
> > long and diligently, as a youth, that one arm and shoulder
developed
> > more musculature than the other. If that were true, then every
old
> > soldier would look like that (since they had better practice
long and
> > diligently with a sword, and did so for military careers that
lasted
> > decades), not to mention every longbow archer, and it would not
be
> > remarkable and we'd never have heard of Richard having uneven
> > shoulders. And besides, while Richard probably could handle a
sword
> > (or it would have been rearked upon, since most men could) his
battle
> > weapon of choice seems to have been the ax.
> >
> > I know some don't believe he did, and that it was slander by his
> > enemies. In the first place, having uneven shoulders is not
> > shameful...if the Tudors or Lancastrians had wanted to assign a
> > negative physical defect to him, wouldn't they have picked one
that
> > suggested shame or evil, and in a place that couldn't be checked
out
> > by the common folk, like maybe three testicles, or none, or a
> > birthmark in a hideous shape, or a big hairy mole on his butt?
And
> > there is that lack of cause and effect...the shoulders are
mentioned
> > in passing, or as part of a general description of the man.
> >
> > The hunchback business, remember, came later and it obviously is
> > meant to slander, since in the Medieval mindset a twisted body
> > betrays a twisted mind, and vice versa. We get the withered
arm
> > business from More, and that says enough. More was never one
for
> > moderation...he writes purple prose. Wasn't it More who said
Richard
> > was two years in the womb and was born with teeth and hair down
to
> > his shoulders? What, no forked tail?
> >
> > Personally -- and I know this will offend some members of this
> > group -- I think Richard did have uneven shoulders. And so
what? It
> > didn't seem to affect his ability to do anything required of
him. It
> > was just a physical characteristic.
> >
> > Katy

No.
Paul Murray Kendall was doing Richard a disservice by trying to explain
the Tudor hunchback myth.
Paul

On Jun 6, 2005, at 16:55, eileen wrote:

>
> I am wondering - was it ever mentioned in his actual lifetime that he
> had uneven
> shoulders?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , oregonkaty
> <no_reply@y...> wrote:
>> --- In , diomedes5465@a...
>> wrote:
>>> Many historians also attribute Elizabeth's receding hairline (if
>> indeed we
>>> accept that it was receding and not her natural line - some debate
>> on that as
>>> well) to the same source that plagued many other woman at the time -
>> a lead
>>> based make-up that was particularly fashionable. It served to
>> give the fair
>>> complexion (in the original 16th C meaning of "fair" as used by
>> Shakespeare).
>>> The level of lead used would be quite sufficient to cause extreme
>> hair loss
>>> after a while.
>>
>>
>> Could be. I do think, though, that in reading material from another
>> culture or time, we have to keep in mind that if something is
>> remarked upon, it is remarkable. (As opposed to our own time, when
>> there is so much print and air-time to be filled that the most
>> miniscule and ordinary is sometimes remarked upon at length.)
>>
>> With that yardstick in mind, then the state of Elizabeth's hair was
>> unusual...if hair loss was a common result of a heavy hand with
>> cosmetics, or of smallpox, it probably would not have been
>> mentioned. Or if mentioned because she was a queen and thus of
>> interest, not mentioned so many times. And I'd expect to see
>> a "cause and effect" remark every once in a while, in the vein
>> of "she is so vain of her face that her hair is suffering," or
>> linking her severe bout of smallpox with the condition of her hair.
>> There are other cause-and-effect remarks that contemporaries made
>> about her love of sweets leaving her with few, blackened, teeth in
>> her later years, and of her face showing smallpox scars.
>>
>> Similarly, using the remarked upon = remarkable principle, I find
>> Paul Murray Kendall's explanation of Richard's purported uneven
>> shoulders absurd. He says Richard practiced with a heavy sword so
>> long and diligently, as a youth, that one arm and shoulder developed
>> more musculature than the other. If that were true, then every old
>> soldier would look like that (since they had better practice long and
>> diligently with a sword, and did so for military careers that lasted
>> decades), not to mention every longbow archer, and it would not be
>> remarkable and we'd never have heard of Richard having uneven
>> shoulders. And besides, while Richard probably could handle a sword
>> (or it would have been rearked upon, since most men could) his battle
>> weapon of choice seems to have been the ax.
>>
>> I know some don't believe he did, and that it was slander by his
>> enemies. In the first place, having uneven shoulders is not
>> shameful...if the Tudors or Lancastrians had wanted to assign a
>> negative physical defect to him, wouldn't they have picked one that
>> suggested shame or evil, and in a place that couldn't be checked out
>> by the common folk, like maybe three testicles, or none, or a
>> birthmark in a hideous shape, or a big hairy mole on his butt? And
>> there is that lack of cause and effect...the shoulders are mentioned
>> in passing, or as part of a general description of the man.
>>
>> The hunchback business, remember, came later and it obviously is
>> meant to slander, since in the Medieval mindset a twisted body
>> betrays a twisted mind, and vice versa. We get the withered arm
>> business from More, and that says enough. More was never one for
>> moderation...he writes purple prose. Wasn't it More who said Richard
>> was two years in the womb and was born with teeth and hair down to
>> his shoulders? What, no forked tail?
>>
>> Personally -- and I know this will offend some members of this
>> group -- I think Richard did have uneven shoulders. And so what? It
>> didn't seem to affect his ability to do anything required of him. It
>> was just a physical characteristic.
>>
>> Katy
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "eileen"
<ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
>
> I am wondering - was it ever mentioned in his actual lifetime that he
had uneven
> shoulders?


I believe so, but perhaps other members of the group can give a more
definitive answer.

I know thw portrait in question was repainted, morethan once, to
produce a hump or major shoulder distortion.

Katy

It could be Paul Murray Kendall was correct. It reminded me of something I had read
about the human remains found on the Mary Rose wreck, which as you all know sunk in
1545. When these remains were examined several of the skeletons were "identified as
archers from the unusual development of wrists, arms, shoulders and back muscles
caused by repeated practice with longbows from an early age".
Eileen

-- In , oregonkaty <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In , "eileen"
> <ebatesparrot@y...> wrote:
> >
> > I am wondering - was it ever mentioned in his actual lifetime that he
> had uneven
> > shoulders?
>
>
> I believe so, but perhaps other members of the group can give a more
> definitive answer.
>
> I know thw portrait in question was repainted, morethan once, to
> produce a hump or major shoulder distortion.
>
> Katy

I believe Elizabeth exercised strict controls over her portraits.
They all had to conform - none of the "warts and all" here. I don't
know anything about her hair, but have always assumed that she wore a
wig. Did women still shave their hairlines in her days?

As regards Richard's unevenness of shoulders, I came across a
reference some time ago to Waurin's Chronicle (an illuminated book)
which someone has suggested shows Richard. I don't rcall what the
grounds for this assertion were, but having looked at the picture
myself the man who is said to be Richard, standing on the left with
his back to the viewer, appears to have uneven shoulders. I wonder if
there is any significance in this placing in that perhaps the artist
was using his art to show what could not be said. Just a thought.

I think it is possible Richard did have some slight deformity. It is
not so unusual for a child to be born with long hair (my sister was)
and also to have teeth at birth. I wonder if perhaps he suffered some
injury at birth.