New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-07 07:47:18
Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
perpetuate a medieval belief.
However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
Richard III's possible deformity.
Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
treatment would cause premature death.
I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
Regards,
Antonia Barker
London, UK
I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
perpetuate a medieval belief.
However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
Richard III's possible deformity.
Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
treatment would cause premature death.
I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
Regards,
Antonia Barker
London, UK
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 11:46:11
Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was nicknamed
Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
>
> I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
>
> I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> perpetuate a medieval belief.
>
> However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> Richard III's possible deformity.
>
> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
>
> I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
>
> I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> perpetuate a medieval belief.
>
> However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> Richard III's possible deformity.
>
> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 12:03:35
Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
----- Original Message -----
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was nicknamed
Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
>
> I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
>
> I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> perpetuate a medieval belief.
>
> However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> Richard III's possible deformity.
>
> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: William Barber
To:
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was nicknamed
Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
>
> I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
>
> I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> perpetuate a medieval belief.
>
> However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> Richard III's possible deformity.
>
> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 12:35:56
Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although I
don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting to
look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
(apparently).
European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding purposes,
and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population over
the centuries.
Stephen Lark wrote:
> Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: New member with interest in
> evidence for Richard's "deformity"
>
>
> Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was nicknamed
> Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
> deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
> have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
> was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
> shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
> argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
> the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
>
> Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> >
> > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> >
> > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> >
> > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > Richard III's possible deformity.
> >
> > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting to
look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
(apparently).
European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding purposes,
and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population over
the centuries.
Stephen Lark wrote:
> Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William Barber
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: New member with interest in
> evidence for Richard's "deformity"
>
>
> Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was nicknamed
> Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred to a
> deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as easily
> have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat. Interestingly, there
> was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I, who was
> shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use this
> argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets was
> the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
>
> Antonia_barker wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> >
> > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the character of
> > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted mind in a
> > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to adversely
> > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> >
> > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback" deformity,
> > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not Richard was a
> > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a cause
> > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media helps to
> > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> >
> > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the evidence
> > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through research and
> > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable about
> > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope that I
> > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > Richard III's possible deformity.
> >
> > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas von
> > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 12:53:38
Fascinating replies, thanks!
I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie of
York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor via
Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is one)
would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been able
to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines, one
would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had any
spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would ever
have cause to be documented.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although
I
> don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
to
> look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> (apparently).
>
> European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
purposes,
> and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
over
> the centuries.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William Barber
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member with
interest in
> > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> >
> >
> > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
nicknamed
> > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
to a
> > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
easily
> > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
Interestingly, there
> > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
who was
> > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
this
> > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
Plantagenets was
> > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> >
> > Antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > >
> > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
character of
> > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
mind in a
> > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
adversely
> > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > >
> > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
deformity,
> > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
Richard was a
> > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not
a cause
> > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
helps to
> > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > >
> > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
evidence
> > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
research and
> > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
about
> > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
that I
> > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
on one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
his image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
suits of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from
a slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
spinal
> > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
cases of
> > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
Scoliosis seem
> > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
Nicholas von
> > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Antonia Barker
> > > London, UK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie of
York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor via
Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is one)
would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been able
to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines, one
would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had any
spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would ever
have cause to be documented.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although
I
> don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
to
> look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> (apparently).
>
> European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
purposes,
> and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
over
> the centuries.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William Barber
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member with
interest in
> > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> >
> >
> > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
nicknamed
> > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
to a
> > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
easily
> > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
Interestingly, there
> > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
who was
> > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
this
> > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
Plantagenets was
> > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> >
> > Antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > >
> > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
character of
> > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
mind in a
> > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
adversely
> > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > >
> > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
deformity,
> > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
Richard was a
> > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not
a cause
> > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
helps to
> > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > >
> > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
evidence
> > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
research and
> > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
about
> > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
that I
> > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
on one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
his image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
suits of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from
a slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
spinal
> > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
cases of
> > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
Scoliosis seem
> > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
Nicholas von
> > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Antonia Barker
> > > London, UK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 14:12:28
The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which one
would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less likely
to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so bloody
dysfunctional ;-)
antonia_barker wrote:
> Fascinating replies, thanks!
>
> I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie of
> York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
>
> Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor via
> Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is one)
> would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been able
> to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines, one
> would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
>
> Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had any
> spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would ever
> have cause to be documented.
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although
> I
> > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
> to
> > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> > (apparently).
> >
> > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> purposes,
> > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
> over
> > the centuries.
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: William Barber
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New member with
> interest in
> > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > >
> > >
> > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> nicknamed
> > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
> to a
> > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
> easily
> > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> Interestingly, there
> > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
> who was
> > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
> this
> > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> Plantagenets was
> > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> > >
> > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > >
> > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> character of
> > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> mind in a
> > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> adversely
> > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > > >
> > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> deformity,
> > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> Richard was a
> > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not
> a cause
> > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> helps to
> > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > >
> > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
> evidence
> > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> research and
> > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> about
> > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
> that I
> > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
> to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
> on one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
> have been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> altered to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
> was done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> his image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> suits of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
> have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from
> a slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > >
> > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> spinal
> > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> cases of
> > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> addition,
> > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> Scoliosis seem
> > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> Nicholas von
> > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > London, UK
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> > >
> > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which one
would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less likely
to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so bloody
dysfunctional ;-)
antonia_barker wrote:
> Fascinating replies, thanks!
>
> I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie of
> York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
>
> Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor via
> Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is one)
> would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been able
> to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines, one
> would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
>
> Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had any
> spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would ever
> have cause to be documented.
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although
> I
> > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
> to
> > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> > (apparently).
> >
> > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> purposes,
> > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
> over
> > the centuries.
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: William Barber
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > Subject: Re: New member with
> interest in
> > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > >
> > >
> > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> nicknamed
> > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
> to a
> > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
> easily
> > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> Interestingly, there
> > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
> who was
> > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
> this
> > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> Plantagenets was
> > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> > >
> > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > >
> > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> character of
> > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> mind in a
> > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> adversely
> > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > > >
> > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> deformity,
> > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> Richard was a
> > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not
> a cause
> > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> helps to
> > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > >
> > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
> evidence
> > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> research and
> > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> about
> > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
> that I
> > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
> to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
> on one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
> have been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> altered to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
> was done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> his image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> suits of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
> have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from
> a slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > >
> > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> spinal
> > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> cases of
> > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> addition,
> > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> Scoliosis seem
> > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> Nicholas von
> > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > London, UK
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> > >
> > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 14:17:49
Exactly - so, in the unlikely event that Eugenie's scoliosis was a
familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself and
Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
one
> would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
likely
> to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
bloody
> dysfunctional ;-)
>
> antonia_barker wrote:
>
> > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> >
> > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie
of
> > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
via
> > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
one)
> > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
able
> > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
one
> > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> >
> > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had
any
> > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
ever
> > have cause to be documented.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
although
> > I
> > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
interesting
> > to
> > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
two
> > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
porphyria
> > > (apparently).
> > >
> > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> > purposes,
> > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
population
> > over
> > > the centuries.
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: William Barber
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > interest in
> > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> > nicknamed
> > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
referred
> > to a
> > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
might as
> > easily
> > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > Interestingly, there
> > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward
I,
> > who was
> > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
use
> > this
> > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > Plantagenets was
> > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
story.
> > > >
> > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > character of
> > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
spinal
> > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> > mind in a
> > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
media
> > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
evil or
> > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> > adversely
> > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
treated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
scoliosis and
> > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> > deformity,
> > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > Richard was a
> > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is
not
> > a cause
> > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> > helps to
> > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to
be a
> > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
the
> > evidence
> > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> > research and
> > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> > about
> > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
hope
> > that I
> > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
understanding of
> > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
spine
> > that
> > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
shoulders
> > to
> > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
hump
> > on one
> > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> > that
> > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
deformity.
> > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
shape of
> > the
> > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > termed "Congenital
> > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
commonly)
> > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
curve,
> > and
> > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > person's
> > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
well
> > have been
> > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib
hump
> > that
> > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > altered to
> > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
this
> > was done
> > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> > his image
> > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
whether
> > they are
> > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
scoliosis.
> > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> > armour if
> > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> > suits of
> > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
that
> > have
> > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
rib-
> > humps),
> > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > deformity.
> > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
from
> > a slight
> > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> > without
> > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
extant? Or
> > even,
> > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> > wear
> > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> > spinal
> > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> > cases of
> > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> > addition,
> > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > Nicholas von
> > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > London, UK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
web.
> > > >
> > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> > of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself and
Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
one
> would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
likely
> to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
bloody
> dysfunctional ;-)
>
> antonia_barker wrote:
>
> > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> >
> > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie
of
> > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> >
> > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
via
> > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
one)
> > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
able
> > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
one
> > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> >
> > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had
any
> > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
ever
> > have cause to be documented.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
although
> > I
> > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
interesting
> > to
> > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
two
> > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
porphyria
> > > (apparently).
> > >
> > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> > purposes,
> > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
population
> > over
> > > the centuries.
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: William Barber
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > interest in
> > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> > nicknamed
> > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
referred
> > to a
> > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
might as
> > easily
> > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > Interestingly, there
> > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward
I,
> > who was
> > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
use
> > this
> > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > Plantagenets was
> > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
story.
> > > >
> > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > >
> > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > character of
> > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
spinal
> > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> > mind in a
> > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
media
> > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
evil or
> > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> > adversely
> > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
treated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
scoliosis and
> > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> > deformity,
> > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > Richard was a
> > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is
not
> > a cause
> > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> > helps to
> > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to
be a
> > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
the
> > evidence
> > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> > research and
> > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> > about
> > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
hope
> > that I
> > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
understanding of
> > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
spine
> > that
> > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
shoulders
> > to
> > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
hump
> > on one
> > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> > that
> > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
deformity.
> > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
shape of
> > the
> > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > termed "Congenital
> > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
commonly)
> > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
curve,
> > and
> > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > person's
> > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
well
> > have been
> > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib
hump
> > that
> > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > altered to
> > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
this
> > was done
> > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> > his image
> > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
whether
> > they are
> > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
scoliosis.
> > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> > armour if
> > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> > suits of
> > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
that
> > have
> > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
rib-
> > humps),
> > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > deformity.
> > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
from
> > a slight
> > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> > without
> > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
extant? Or
> > even,
> > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> > wear
> > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> > spinal
> > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> > cases of
> > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> > addition,
> > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > Nicholas von
> > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > London, UK
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
web.
> > > >
> > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> > of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-07 14:28:48
Wonder if anyone inherited all the various royal problems: scoliosis,
prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding, the
individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then, if he
or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may also have
contracted syphilis.
And here we think we have problems ;-)
antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Exactly - so, in the unlikely event that Eugenie's scoliosis was a
> familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
> be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself and
> Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> > marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
> one
> > would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
> likely
> > to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
> bloody
> > dysfunctional ;-)
> >
> > antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> > >
> > > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie
> of
> > > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> > > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> > > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> > >
> > > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> > > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
> via
> > > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> > > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
> one)
> > > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
> able
> > > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
> one
> > > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> > > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had
> any
> > > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
> ever
> > > have cause to be documented.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber
> > > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
> although
> > > I
> > > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
> interesting
> > > to
> > > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
> two
> > > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
> porphyria
> > > > (apparently).
> > > >
> > > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> > > purposes,
> > > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
> population
> > > over
> > > > the centuries.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: William Barber
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > > interest in
> > > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> > > nicknamed
> > > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
> referred
> > > to a
> > > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
> might as
> > > easily
> > > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > > Interestingly, there
> > > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward
> I,
> > > who was
> > > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
> use
> > > this
> > > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > > Plantagenets was
> > > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
> story.
> > > > >
> > > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > > character of
> > > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
> spinal
> > > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> > > mind in a
> > > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
> media
> > > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
> evil or
> > > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> > > adversely
> > > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
> treated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
> scoliosis and
> > > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> > > deformity,
> > > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > > Richard was a
> > > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is
> not
> > > a cause
> > > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> > > helps to
> > > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to
> be a
> > > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
> the
> > > evidence
> > > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> > > research and
> > > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> > > about
> > > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
> hope
> > > that I
> > > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
> understanding of
> > > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
> spine
> > > that
> > > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
> shoulders
> > > to
> > > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
> hump
> > > on one
> > > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> > > that
> > > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
> deformity.
> > > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
> shape of
> > > the
> > > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > > termed "Congenital
> > > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
> commonly)
> > > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
> curve,
> > > and
> > > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > > person's
> > > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
> well
> > > have been
> > > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib
> hump
> > > that
> > > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > > altered to
> > > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
> this
> > > was done
> > > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> > > his image
> > > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
> whether
> > > they are
> > > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
> scoliosis.
> > > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> > > armour if
> > > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> > > suits of
> > > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
> that
> > > have
> > > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
> rib-
> > > humps),
> > > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > > deformity.
> > > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
> from
> > > a slight
> > > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> > > without
> > > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
> extant? Or
> > > even,
> > > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> > > wear
> > > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> > > spinal
> > > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> > > cases of
> > > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> > > addition,
> > > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > > Nicholas von
> > > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > > London, UK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > >
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
> web.
> > > > >
> > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms
> > > of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding, the
individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then, if he
or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may also have
contracted syphilis.
And here we think we have problems ;-)
antonia_barker wrote:
>
> Exactly - so, in the unlikely event that Eugenie's scoliosis was a
> familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
> be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself and
> Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> > marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
> one
> > would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
> likely
> > to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
> bloody
> > dysfunctional ;-)
> >
> > antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> > >
> > > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess Eugenie
> of
> > > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the Royal
> > > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has had
> > > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> > >
> > > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal line, I
> > > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
> via
> > > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in between
> > > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
> one)
> > > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
> able
> > > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
> one
> > > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would be
> > > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives had
> any
> > > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
> ever
> > > have cause to be documented.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , William Barber
> > > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
> although
> > > I
> > > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
> interesting
> > > to
> > > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
> two
> > > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
> porphyria
> > > > (apparently).
> > > >
> > > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
> > > purposes,
> > > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
> population
> > > over
> > > > the centuries.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: William Barber
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > > interest in
> > > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
> > > nicknamed
> > > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
> referred
> > > to a
> > > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
> might as
> > > easily
> > > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > > Interestingly, there
> > > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward
> I,
> > > who was
> > > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
> use
> > > this
> > > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > > Plantagenets was
> > > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
> story.
> > > > >
> > > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > > character of
> > > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
> spinal
> > > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
> > > mind in a
> > > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
> media
> > > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
> evil or
> > > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
> > > adversely
> > > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
> treated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
> scoliosis and
> > > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
> > > deformity,
> > > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > > Richard was a
> > > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is
> not
> > > a cause
> > > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
> > > helps to
> > > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to
> be a
> > > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
> the
> > > evidence
> > > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
> > > research and
> > > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
> > > about
> > > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
> hope
> > > that I
> > > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
> understanding of
> > > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
> spine
> > > that
> > > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
> shoulders
> > > to
> > > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
> hump
> > > on one
> > > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
> > > that
> > > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
> deformity.
> > > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
> shape of
> > > the
> > > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > > termed "Congenital
> > > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
> commonly)
> > > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
> curve,
> > > and
> > > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > > person's
> > > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
> well
> > > have been
> > > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib
> hump
> > > that
> > > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > > altered to
> > > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
> this
> > > was done
> > > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
> > > his image
> > > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
> whether
> > > they are
> > > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
> scoliosis.
> > > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> > > armour if
> > > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
> > > suits of
> > > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
> that
> > > have
> > > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
> rib-
> > > humps),
> > > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > > deformity.
> > > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
> from
> > > a slight
> > > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> > > without
> > > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
> extant? Or
> > > even,
> > > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
> > > wear
> > > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
> > > spinal
> > > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
> > > cases of
> > > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
> > > addition,
> > > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > > Nicholas von
> > > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > > London, UK
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > >
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
> web.
> > > > >
> > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > > Terms of
> > > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms
> > > of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > -------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-08 17:09:11
--- In , "antonia_barker"
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
and only a couple of years after his death.
Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
deformed individual.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
Marie
>
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
>
> Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
been
> born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
and only a couple of years after his death.
Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
slight
> curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> treatment would cause premature death.
Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
deformed individual.
>
> I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
Marie
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-08 17:14:59
I don't think so either - I am fairly certain his father rose from
nothing but it is possible. However, his descendants married into the
Rutland line and so did his brother/cousin William, Earl of Exeter
(1566-1640).
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although I
> don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
to
> look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> (apparently).
>
> European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
purposes,
> and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
over
> the centuries.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William Barber
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member with
interest in
> > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> >
> >
> > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
nicknamed
> > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
to a
> > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
easily
> > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
Interestingly, there
> > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
who was
> > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
this
> > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
Plantagenets was
> > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> >
> > Antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > >
> > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
character of
> > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
mind in a
> > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
adversely
> > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > >
> > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
deformity,
> > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
Richard was a
> > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a
cause
> > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
helps to
> > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > >
> > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
evidence
> > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
research and
> > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
about
> > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
that I
> > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
spinal
> > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
cases of
> > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
Nicholas von
> > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Antonia Barker
> > > London, UK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
nothing but it is possible. However, his descendants married into the
Rutland line and so did his brother/cousin William, Earl of Exeter
(1566-1640).
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back, although I
> don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be interesting
to
> look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other two
> European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and porphyria
> (apparently).
>
> European nobility was a pretty closed population for breeding
purposes,
> and the same problems do turn up frequently within that population
over
> the centuries.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: William Barber
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: New member with
interest in
> > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> >
> >
> > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who was
nicknamed
> > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet referred
to a
> > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name might as
easily
> > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
Interestingly, there
> > was a story that he was really the older brother of Edward I,
who was
> > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to use
this
> > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
Plantagenets was
> > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the story.
> >
> > Antonia_barker wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > >
> > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
character of
> > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe spinal
> > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a twisted
mind in a
> > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative media
> > > representations of people with spinal deformities as evil or
> > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue to
adversely
> > > effect the way that people with such conditions are treated.
> > >
> > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with scoliosis and
> > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to the "hunchback"
deformity,
> > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
Richard was a
> > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity is not a
cause
> > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the media
helps to
> > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > >
> > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III to be a
> > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at the
evidence
> > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback". Through
research and
> > > work for the forum I have become reasonably knowledgeable
about
> > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I hope
that I
> > > may be able to use this to contribute to the understanding of
> > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had
spinal
> > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many
cases of
> > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
Nicholas von
> > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Antonia Barker
> > > London, UK
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-08 17:57:48
This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard had
some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he would
have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which would
make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate about the
effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it may
be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality known
as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time. The
issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
> him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
> Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
> and only a couple of years after his death.
>
> Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
> lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
> National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
> the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
> appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
> months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
> there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
> Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
>
> I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
> work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
> shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
> scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
> will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
> Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
> suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
> claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
> the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
> it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
> about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
>
>
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
>
> Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
> and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
> that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
> but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
> is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
> to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
> deformed individual.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he would
have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which would
make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate about the
effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it may
be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality known
as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time. The
issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
> him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
> Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
> and only a couple of years after his death.
>
> Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
> lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
> National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
> the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
> appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
> months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
> there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
> Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
>
> I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
> work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
> shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
> scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
> will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
> Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
> suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
> claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
> the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
> it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
> about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
>
>
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
>
> Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
> and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
> that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
> but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
> is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
> to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
> deformed individual.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-08 23:13:56
The appearance of a hunched back might have nothing to do with the back at all. I have no spinal conditions, but my legs are unequal by about an inch and a half. Even this tiny difference makes walking a somewhat tiring and painful exercise, making me sort of "droop". I've also noticed a tendency to hold my right shoulder higher when tense.
This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard had
some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he would
have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which would
make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate about the
effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it may
be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality known
as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time. The
issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
> him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
> Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
> and only a couple of years after his death.
>
> Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
> lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
> National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
> the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
> appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
> months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
> there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
> Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
>
> I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
> work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
> shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
> scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
> will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
> Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
> suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
> claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
> the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
> it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
> about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
>
>
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
>
> Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
> and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
> that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
> but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
> is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
> to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
> deformed individual.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard had
some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he would
have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which would
make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate about the
effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it may
be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality known
as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time. The
issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine that
> > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on one
> > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> >
> > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of the
> > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is termed "Congenital
> > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is termed "Idiopathic
> > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve, and
> > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> been
> > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump that
> > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered to
> > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was done
> > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his image
> > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
>
> Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who saw
> him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini and
> Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well known,
> and only a couple of years after his death.
>
> Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has been
> lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later (the
> National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death. None of
> the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it would
> appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death (5
> months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride, so
> there wouldn't have been enough time between the original sitting and
> Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
>
> >
> > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether they are
> > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
>
> I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your good
> work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My left
> shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have any
> scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either can or
> will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference to
> Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would indeed
> suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a man
> claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder whether
> the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant that
> it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very scathing
> about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
>
>
> > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear armour if
> > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits of
> > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-humps),
> > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> slight
> > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that without
> > treatment would cause premature death.
>
> Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven hips
> and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read, however,
> that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at all,
> but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact, there
> is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have belonged
> to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been made a
> deformed individual.
> >
> > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or even,
> > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
>
> Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
>
> Marie
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-08 23:42:21
the ages of 31 and 33 are hardly old to be having children. I was
32 and my husband 36 when we had our youngest. I remember reading
similar comments in the back of Reay Tannahill's Seventh Son about
the more sons a woman has, the less favoured they become. I had to
smile when I read this when I thought of my uncle who was my
grandmothers sixth son and born when she was 41. He is six feet six
tall, looks like Sting and is academically brilliant. Answer that.
As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
his time through worry.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
32 and my husband 36 when we had our youngest. I remember reading
similar comments in the back of Reay Tannahill's Seventh Son about
the more sons a woman has, the less favoured they become. I had to
smile when I read this when I thought of my uncle who was my
grandmothers sixth son and born when she was 41. He is six feet six
tall, looks like Sting and is academically brilliant. Answer that.
As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
his time through worry.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 04:53:08
If the portraits of Richard and his brother Edward are good likeness of the two men I always thought Richard much better and more interesting looking. In fact in the portraits I have seen of Edward he seems rather plain and bland.
I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
Of cause looks shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does and has affected how people are viewed by others.
I have heard that nearly everyone is slightly lopsided. I am certainly, one foot larger than the other, uneven shoulders etc. Luckily I don't think it would be obvious to others.
Helen
amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
his time through worry.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
Of cause looks shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does and has affected how people are viewed by others.
I have heard that nearly everyone is slightly lopsided. I am certainly, one foot larger than the other, uneven shoulders etc. Luckily I don't think it would be obvious to others.
Helen
amertzanis <amertzanis@...> wrote:
As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
his time through worry.
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 07:32:17
Hello Everyone
I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but entertaining. In this book, the central character analysed Richard's portrait and put him,'On the bench rather than in the dock.'
On Tuesday, November 08, 2005, at 08:53PM, Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but entertaining. In this book, the central character analysed Richard's portrait and put him,'On the bench rather than in the dock.'
On Tuesday, November 08, 2005, at 08:53PM, Helen Rowe <sweethelly2003@...> wrote:
>
><<Original Attached>>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-09 10:41:03
--- In , "amertzanis"
<amertzanis@y...> wrote:
>
>
> the ages of 31 and 33 are hardly old to be having children. I was
> 32 and my husband 36 when we had our youngest. I remember reading
> similar comments in the back of Reay Tannahill's Seventh Son about
> the more sons a woman has, the less favoured they become. I had to
> smile when I read this when I thought of my uncle who was my
> grandmothers sixth son and born when she was 41. He is six feet six
> tall, looks like Sting and is academically brilliant. Answer that.
> As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
> brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
> picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
> his time through worry.
>
I couldn't agree more. Cecily was born in May 1415, so was 37 when
Richard was born and 36 when she fell pregnant with him. Her husband
was only 40 when he fathered Richard, and a man can father children
into old age.
I feel there is sometimes a tendency (particularly amongst some of
the medical profession these days) to confuse the issue of late first
pregnancy with late pregnancy per se. Hence all the criticism of
today's women having their families late. Having babies in late
thirties and forties was of course never unusual until 'planned' (ie
small) families became the norm in the 20th century. However, for a
generation or two up until, say, the 1980s or 1990s couples were
getting married in their early or mid twenties and starting their
planned families straight away, so most families were pretty well
complete by the time the mother was thirty. Modern obstetricians seem
to have got it in their heads that this was the natural order, but of
course this was a pattern which was only made possible by
contraceptives. Before that, doctors took it for granted that married
women in their thirties had babies, and just got on with it. (Sorry,
personal hobby horse there.)
Women are designed to be fertile into their forties. If you look at
any early census you will see how normal it was for women
(particularly the healthier countrywoman) to continue regular
childbearing into mid or even late forties. I have in fact discovered
a great-great aunt who had her last baby at the age of 52.
Okay, mid-thirties is the age at which the decline in fertility and
safety begins, but it's hardly a decline that's well advanced by 37.
The bigger danger was always for 'tough old birds' like that to be
giving birth for the first time.
I had my two children in my early thirties; the boy is 6ft 4in and
the girl is 5 ft 7 in. My mother was 36 when she had me & my brother
(my father was 10 years older); the two of us together weighed in at
12 1/2 lbs. My grandmother was 39 when she had my mother(who grew to
be nearly 5 ft 9 in, very good looking & a scholarship
pupil).However, my grandmother did have a difficult labour because it
was her first.
A more worrying factor perhaps would be the effect on the mother's
nutritional status of annual pregnancies over a long period of years.
but I must say the possible effect of the sheer number of pregnancies
Cecily had crammed into a short space of time - one a year from 1442
to 1450 - bothers me more than her age. However, Cecily had had a
fourteen-month gap after Thomas before falling pregnant with richard,
and she was able to afford the best of food. Our health visitor
always used to say you should allow at least a year before starting
another baby as that's how long it takes the body a year to recover
from a pregnancy. I think there is no doubt that Richard was
physically able, and highly intelligent. Certainly, Cecily herself
recovered from all the babies as she lived to see her eightieth
birthday.
By the way, i too find the richard of the portraits much more
attractive looking than Edward. And Edward also reminds me of Henry
VIII, and in more than just looks.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if
Richard
> had
> > some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we
should
> > remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
> would
> > have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414,
which
> would
> > make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
> about the
> > effects of having children later in life stands these days, but
it
> may
> > be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
> known
> > as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
> The
> > issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
> one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have
> > > been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered
> to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was
> done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
> image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
> saw
> > > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
> and
> > > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
> known,
> > > and only a couple of years after his death.
> > >
> > > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
> been
> > > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted
later
> (the
> > > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it
was
> > > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
> None of
> > > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
> would
> > > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty
much
> > > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
> (5
> > > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new
bride,
> so
> > > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
> sitting and
> > > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > >
> > > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud
your
> good
> > > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
> left
> > > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
> any
> > > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
> can or
> > > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
> to
> > > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
> indeed
> > > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
> man
> > > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
> whether
> > > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
> that
> > > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
> scathing
> > > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's
epithet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
> of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > > slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
> hips
> > > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
> however,
> > > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
> all,
> > > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
> there
> > > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
> belonged
> > > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
> made a
> > > deformed individual.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
<amertzanis@y...> wrote:
>
>
> the ages of 31 and 33 are hardly old to be having children. I was
> 32 and my husband 36 when we had our youngest. I remember reading
> similar comments in the back of Reay Tannahill's Seventh Son about
> the more sons a woman has, the less favoured they become. I had to
> smile when I read this when I thought of my uncle who was my
> grandmothers sixth son and born when she was 41. He is six feet six
> tall, looks like Sting and is academically brilliant. Answer that.
> As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
> brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait Gallery
> picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
> his time through worry.
>
I couldn't agree more. Cecily was born in May 1415, so was 37 when
Richard was born and 36 when she fell pregnant with him. Her husband
was only 40 when he fathered Richard, and a man can father children
into old age.
I feel there is sometimes a tendency (particularly amongst some of
the medical profession these days) to confuse the issue of late first
pregnancy with late pregnancy per se. Hence all the criticism of
today's women having their families late. Having babies in late
thirties and forties was of course never unusual until 'planned' (ie
small) families became the norm in the 20th century. However, for a
generation or two up until, say, the 1980s or 1990s couples were
getting married in their early or mid twenties and starting their
planned families straight away, so most families were pretty well
complete by the time the mother was thirty. Modern obstetricians seem
to have got it in their heads that this was the natural order, but of
course this was a pattern which was only made possible by
contraceptives. Before that, doctors took it for granted that married
women in their thirties had babies, and just got on with it. (Sorry,
personal hobby horse there.)
Women are designed to be fertile into their forties. If you look at
any early census you will see how normal it was for women
(particularly the healthier countrywoman) to continue regular
childbearing into mid or even late forties. I have in fact discovered
a great-great aunt who had her last baby at the age of 52.
Okay, mid-thirties is the age at which the decline in fertility and
safety begins, but it's hardly a decline that's well advanced by 37.
The bigger danger was always for 'tough old birds' like that to be
giving birth for the first time.
I had my two children in my early thirties; the boy is 6ft 4in and
the girl is 5 ft 7 in. My mother was 36 when she had me & my brother
(my father was 10 years older); the two of us together weighed in at
12 1/2 lbs. My grandmother was 39 when she had my mother(who grew to
be nearly 5 ft 9 in, very good looking & a scholarship
pupil).However, my grandmother did have a difficult labour because it
was her first.
A more worrying factor perhaps would be the effect on the mother's
nutritional status of annual pregnancies over a long period of years.
but I must say the possible effect of the sheer number of pregnancies
Cecily had crammed into a short space of time - one a year from 1442
to 1450 - bothers me more than her age. However, Cecily had had a
fourteen-month gap after Thomas before falling pregnant with richard,
and she was able to afford the best of food. Our health visitor
always used to say you should allow at least a year before starting
another baby as that's how long it takes the body a year to recover
from a pregnancy. I think there is no doubt that Richard was
physically able, and highly intelligent. Certainly, Cecily herself
recovered from all the babies as she lived to see her eightieth
birthday.
By the way, i too find the richard of the portraits much more
attractive looking than Edward. And Edward also reminds me of Henry
VIII, and in more than just looks.
Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if
Richard
> had
> > some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we
should
> > remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
> would
> > have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414,
which
> would
> > make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
> about the
> > effects of having children later in life stands these days, but
it
> may
> > be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
> known
> > as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
> The
> > issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
> one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have
> > > been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered
> to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was
> done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
> image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
> saw
> > > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
> and
> > > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
> known,
> > > and only a couple of years after his death.
> > >
> > > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
> been
> > > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted
later
> (the
> > > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it
was
> > > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
> None of
> > > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
> would
> > > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty
much
> > > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
> (5
> > > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new
bride,
> so
> > > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
> sitting and
> > > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > >
> > > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud
your
> good
> > > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
> left
> > > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
> any
> > > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
> can or
> > > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
> to
> > > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
> indeed
> > > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
> man
> > > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
> whether
> > > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
> that
> > > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
> scathing
> > > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's
epithet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
> of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > > slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
> hips
> > > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
> however,
> > > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
> all,
> > > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
> there
> > > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
> belonged
> > > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
> made a
> > > deformed individual.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
-
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-09 12:54:56
--- In , Moira Winder
<moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone
> I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
entertaining.
It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
throne as the legitimate successor."
Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
the duke's true son. . . "
How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
princess.
As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
discussed by his supporters.
Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
resemblance?
<moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone
> I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
entertaining.
It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
throne as the legitimate successor."
Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
the duke's true son. . . "
How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
princess.
As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
discussed by his supporters.
Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
resemblance?
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Google Print
2005-11-09 13:03:13
Here's a new Google toolbar beta for your arsenal. Type in any topic you
want and see if there's a book on it.
http://print.google.com/
When I typed ('Richard III' -Shakespeare) into the advanced search
feature of the toolbar, I got the following link:
http://print.google.com/print?as_q=&num=10&lr=&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Richard+III&as_oq=&as_eq=Shakespeare&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=
<http://print.google.com/print?as_q=&num=10&lr=&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Richard+III&as_oq=&as_eq=Shakespeare&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=>
The reason for adding '- Shakespeare' is to get rid of results
pertaining to the play.
want and see if there's a book on it.
http://print.google.com/
When I typed ('Richard III' -Shakespeare) into the advanced search
feature of the toolbar, I got the following link:
http://print.google.com/print?as_q=&num=10&lr=&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Richard+III&as_oq=&as_eq=Shakespeare&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=
<http://print.google.com/print?as_q=&num=10&lr=&ie=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Richard+III&as_oq=&as_eq=Shakespeare&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=>
The reason for adding '- Shakespeare' is to get rid of results
pertaining to the play.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 13:35:33
What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that the
physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
know about Edmund.
This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Moira Winder
> <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone
> > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> entertaining.
>
> It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> throne as the legitimate successor."
> Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> the duke's true son. . . "
>
> How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> princess.
> As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
>
> I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> discussed by his supporters.
>
> Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> resemblance?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
know about Edmund.
This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Moira Winder
> <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone
> > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> entertaining.
>
> It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> throne as the legitimate successor."
> Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> the duke's true son. . . "
>
> How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> princess.
> As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
>
> I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> discussed by his supporters.
>
> Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> resemblance?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 16:09:34
Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically Plantagenet.
Megan
PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in debate: "most people assume..."
I need to stop that.
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that the
physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
know about Edmund.
This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Moira Winder
> <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone
> > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> entertaining.
>
> It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> throne as the legitimate successor."
> Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> the duke's true son. . . "
>
> How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> princess.
> As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
>
> I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> discussed by his supporters.
>
> Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> resemblance?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Megan
PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in debate: "most people assume..."
I need to stop that.
William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that the
physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
know about Edmund.
This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , Moira Winder
> <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Everyone
> > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> entertaining.
>
> It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> throne as the legitimate successor."
> Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> the duke's true son. . . "
>
> How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> princess.
> As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
>
> I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> discussed by his supporters.
>
> Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> resemblance?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-09 16:27:14
A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
Plantagenet.
>
> Megan
>
> PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
debate: "most people assume..."
> I need to stop that.
>
> William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that
the
> physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further,
I may
> be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
Don't
> know about Edmund.
>
> This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , Moira Winder
> > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone
> > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait
shows
> > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
also
> > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > entertaining.
> >
> > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483,
eg:
> > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
Edward "was
> > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to
the
> > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
instruct
> > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily
and
> > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters
were
> > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > the duke's true son. . . "
> >
> > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
Regius
> > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
born in
> > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
time,
> > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
vague
> > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon
by
> > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
events
> > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
exiles
> > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
halfway
> > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in
the
> > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was
a
> > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he
says
> > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
foreign
> > princess.
> > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim
that
> > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at
it.
> > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
description to
> > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
idea
> > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
minus
> > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature
and
> > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> >
> > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > discussed by his supporters.
> >
> > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > resemblance?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > Call united kingdom
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > United kingdom phone card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > United kingdom hotel
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
Plantagenet.
>
> Megan
>
> PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
debate: "most people assume..."
> I need to stop that.
>
> William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that
the
> physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further,
I may
> be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
Don't
> know about Edmund.
>
> This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , Moira Winder
> > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone
> > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait
shows
> > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
also
> > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > entertaining.
> >
> > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483,
eg:
> > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
Edward "was
> > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to
the
> > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
instruct
> > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily
and
> > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters
were
> > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > the duke's true son. . . "
> >
> > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
Regius
> > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
born in
> > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
time,
> > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
vague
> > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon
by
> > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
events
> > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
exiles
> > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
halfway
> > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in
the
> > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was
a
> > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he
says
> > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
foreign
> > princess.
> > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim
that
> > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at
it.
> > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
description to
> > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
idea
> > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
minus
> > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature
and
> > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> >
> > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > discussed by his supporters.
> >
> > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > resemblance?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > Call united kingdom
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > United kingdom phone card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > United kingdom hotel
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 16:30:07
It's amazing what most people assume.
Megan Lerseth wrote:
> Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
> Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically Plantagenet.
>
> Megan
>
> PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in debate: "most
> people assume..."
> I need to stop that.
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that the
> physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
> be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
> know about Edmund.
>
> This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , Moira Winder
> > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone
> > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > entertaining.
> >
> > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > the duke's true son. . . "
> >
> > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> > princess.
> > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> >
> > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > discussed by his supporters.
> >
> > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > resemblance?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united
> kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Megan Lerseth wrote:
> Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
> Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically Plantagenet.
>
> Megan
>
> PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in debate: "most
> people assume..."
> I need to stop that.
>
> William Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
> What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that the
> physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further, I may
> be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance? Don't
> know about Edmund.
>
> This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , Moira Winder
> > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Everyone
> > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait shows
> > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I also
> > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > entertaining.
> >
> > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483, eg:
> > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that Edward "was
> > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to the
> > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to instruct
> > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily and
> > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters were
> > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > the duke's true son. . . "
> >
> > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus Regius
> > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was born in
> > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the time,
> > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is vague
> > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon by
> > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about events
> > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard exiles
> > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone halfway
> > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in the
> > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was a
> > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he says
> > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a foreign
> > princess.
> > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim that
> > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at it.
> > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his description to
> > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the idea
> > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England, minus
> > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature and
> > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> >
> > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > discussed by his supporters.
> >
> > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > resemblance?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united
> kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United
> kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 16:48:51
Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game to go
down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short and
dark. Somebody had to be.
Stephen Lark wrote:
> A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> --- In , Megan Lerseth
> <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
> Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> Plantagenet.
> >
> > Megan
> >
> > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> debate: "most people assume..."
> > I need to stop that.
> >
> > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that
> the
> > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further,
> I may
> > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> Don't
> > know about Edmund.
> >
> > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait
> shows
> > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> also
> > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > entertaining.
> > >
> > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483,
> eg:
> > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> Edward "was
> > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to
> the
> > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> instruct
> > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily
> and
> > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters
> were
> > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > >
> > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> Regius
> > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> born in
> > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> time,
> > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> vague
> > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon
> by
> > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> events
> > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> exiles
> > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> halfway
> > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in
> the
> > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was
> a
> > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he
> says
> > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> foreign
> > > princess.
> > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim
> that
> > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at
> it.
> > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> description to
> > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> idea
> > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> minus
> > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature
> and
> > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > >
> > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > > discussed by his supporters.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > > resemblance?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > Call united kingdom
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > >
> > > United kingdom florist
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > United kingdom phone card
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> United kingdom hotel
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game to go
down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short and
dark. Somebody had to be.
Stephen Lark wrote:
> A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> --- In , Megan Lerseth
> <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking like
> Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> Plantagenet.
> >
> > Megan
> >
> > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> debate: "most people assume..."
> > I need to stop that.
> >
> > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is that
> the
> > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of the
> > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to this
> > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's progenitors,
> > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7". Further,
> I may
> > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> Don't
> > know about Edmund.
> >
> > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's portrait
> shows
> > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that Richard
> > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> also
> > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > entertaining.
> > >
> > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June 1483,
> eg:
> > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> Edward "was
> > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late duke of
> > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke of
> > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come to
> the
> > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> instruct
> > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward was not
> > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who privily
> and
> > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same did
> > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward was
> > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he of
> > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such matters
> were
> > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in place, was
> > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > >
> > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> Regius
> > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> born in
> > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your birth
> > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention Richard's
> > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> time,
> > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> vague
> > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big sermon
> by
> > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England shortly
> > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't leave
> > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> events
> > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> exiles
> > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> halfway
> > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a drop in
> the
> > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there was
> a
> > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since he
> says
> > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> foreign
> > > princess.
> > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually claim
> that
> > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints at
> it.
> > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such a
> > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been politically
> > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist of
> > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> description to
> > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> idea
> > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> minus
> > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of stature
> and
> > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > >
> > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa make hay
> > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea that
> > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and being
> > > discussed by his supporters.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention this
> > > resemblance?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > Call united kingdom
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > >
> > > United kingdom florist
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > United kingdom phone card
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> United kingdom hotel
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >
> > Visit your group "" on the web.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-09 20:05:12
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
to go
> down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
and
> dark. Somebody had to be.
Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
but not Cecily's.
As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
seems, anyone's guess.
Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
the 'slander' they really feared.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Marie
> >
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
like
> > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > Plantagenet.
> > >
> > > Megan
> > >
> > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > I need to stop that.
> > >
> > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
that
> > the
> > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
the
> > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
this
> > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
progenitors,
> > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
Further,
> > I may
> > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > Don't
> > > know about Edmund.
> > >
> > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
portrait
> > shows
> > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
Richard
> > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > also
> > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > entertaining.
> > > >
> > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
1483,
> > eg:
> > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > Edward "was
> > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
duke of
> > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
of
> > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
to
> > the
> > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > instruct
> > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
was not
> > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
privily
> > and
> > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
did
> > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
was
> > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
of
> > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
matters
> > were
> > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
place, was
> > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > >
> > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > Regius
> > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > born in
> > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
birth
> > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
Richard's
> > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > time,
> > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > vague
> > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
sermon
> > by
> > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
shortly
> > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
leave
> > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > events
> > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > exiles
> > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > halfway
> > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
drop in
> > the
> > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
was
> > a
> > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
he
> > says
> > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > foreign
> > > > princess.
> > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
claim
> > that
> > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
at
> > it.
> > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
a
> > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
politically
> > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
of
> > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > description to
> > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > idea
> > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > minus
> > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
stature
> > and
> > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
make hay
> > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
that
> > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
being
> > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
this
> > > > resemblance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> >
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> >
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> >
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> >
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> >
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> >
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > >
> > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> >
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> >
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> >
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> >
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> >
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> >
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > United kingdom hotel
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
to go
> down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
and
> dark. Somebody had to be.
Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
but not Cecily's.
As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
seems, anyone's guess.
Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> Stephen Lark wrote:
>
> > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
the 'slander' they really feared.
Anyway, that's my opinion.
Marie
> >
> > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
like
> > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > Plantagenet.
> > >
> > > Megan
> > >
> > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > I need to stop that.
> > >
> > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
that
> > the
> > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
the
> > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
this
> > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
progenitors,
> > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
Further,
> > I may
> > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > Don't
> > > know about Edmund.
> > >
> > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
portrait
> > shows
> > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
Richard
> > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > also
> > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > entertaining.
> > > >
> > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
1483,
> > eg:
> > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > Edward "was
> > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
duke of
> > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
of
> > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
to
> > the
> > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > instruct
> > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
was not
> > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
privily
> > and
> > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
did
> > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
was
> > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
of
> > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
matters
> > were
> > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
place, was
> > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > >
> > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > Regius
> > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > born in
> > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
birth
> > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
Richard's
> > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > time,
> > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > vague
> > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
sermon
> > by
> > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
shortly
> > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
leave
> > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > events
> > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > exiles
> > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > halfway
> > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
drop in
> > the
> > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
was
> > a
> > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
he
> > says
> > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > foreign
> > > > princess.
> > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
claim
> > that
> > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
at
> > it.
> > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
a
> > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
politically
> > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
of
> > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > description to
> > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > idea
> > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > minus
> > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
stature
> > and
> > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > >
> > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
make hay
> > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
that
> > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
being
> > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
this
> > > > resemblance?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> >
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> >
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> >
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> >
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> >
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> >
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > >
> > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> >
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> >
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> >
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> >
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> >
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> >
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> >
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > United kingdom hotel
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > >
> > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 20:59:25
Got a chance to see the Clarence bones in July of 1975. Eerie
experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
our topic.
http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
closed breeding groups.
But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> to go
> > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> and
> > dark. Somebody had to be.
>
> Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> but not Cecily's.
> As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> seems, anyone's guess.
>
> Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
>
> I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
>
> Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
>
> For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> the 'slander' they really feared.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> like
> > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > Plantagenet.
> > > >
> > > > Megan
> > > >
> > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > I need to stop that.
> > > >
> > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> that
> > > the
> > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> the
> > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> this
> > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> progenitors,
> > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> Further,
> > > I may
> > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > Don't
> > > > know about Edmund.
> > > >
> > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> portrait
> > > shows
> > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> Richard
> > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > also
> > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > entertaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> 1483,
> > > eg:
> > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > Edward "was
> > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> duke of
> > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> of
> > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> to
> > > the
> > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > instruct
> > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> was not
> > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> privily
> > > and
> > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> did
> > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> was
> > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> of
> > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> matters
> > > were
> > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> place, was
> > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > >
> > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > Regius
> > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > born in
> > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> birth
> > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> Richard's
> > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > time,
> > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > vague
> > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> sermon
> > > by
> > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> shortly
> > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> leave
> > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > events
> > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > exiles
> > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > halfway
> > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> drop in
> > > the
> > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> was
> > > a
> > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> he
> > > says
> > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > foreign
> > > > > princess.
> > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> claim
> > > that
> > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> at
> > > it.
> > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> a
> > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> politically
> > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> of
> > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > description to
> > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > idea
> > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > minus
> > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> stature
> > > and
> > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> make hay
> > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> that
> > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> being
> > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> this
> > > > > resemblance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > >
> nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > >
> +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > >
> 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > >
> dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > >
> ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > >
> &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > >
> > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > >
> +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > >
> ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > >
> ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > >
> lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > >
> ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > >
> t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
our topic.
http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
closed breeding groups.
But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> to go
> > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> and
> > dark. Somebody had to be.
>
> Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> but not Cecily's.
> As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> seems, anyone's guess.
>
> Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
>
> I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
>
> Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
>
> For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> the 'slander' they really feared.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> like
> > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > Plantagenet.
> > > >
> > > > Megan
> > > >
> > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > I need to stop that.
> > > >
> > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> that
> > > the
> > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> the
> > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> this
> > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> progenitors,
> > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> Further,
> > > I may
> > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > Don't
> > > > know about Edmund.
> > > >
> > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> portrait
> > > shows
> > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> Richard
> > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > also
> > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > entertaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> 1483,
> > > eg:
> > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > Edward "was
> > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> duke of
> > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> of
> > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> to
> > > the
> > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > instruct
> > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> was not
> > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> privily
> > > and
> > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> did
> > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> was
> > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> of
> > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> matters
> > > were
> > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> place, was
> > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > >
> > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > Regius
> > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > born in
> > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> birth
> > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> Richard's
> > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > time,
> > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > vague
> > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> sermon
> > > by
> > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> shortly
> > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> leave
> > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > events
> > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > exiles
> > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > halfway
> > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> drop in
> > > the
> > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> was
> > > a
> > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> he
> > > says
> > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > foreign
> > > > > princess.
> > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> claim
> > > that
> > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> at
> > > it.
> > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> a
> > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> politically
> > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> of
> > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > description to
> > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > idea
> > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > minus
> > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> stature
> > > and
> > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> make hay
> > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> that
> > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> being
> > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> this
> > > > > resemblance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > >
> nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > >
> +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > >
> 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > >
> dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > >
> ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > >
> &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > >
> > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > >
> +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > >
> ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > >
> ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > >
> lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
> t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > >
> ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > >
> t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 21:07:40
I apologize. The link seems not to be working any more. I'll have look
for the article
William Barber wrote:
> Got a chance to see the Clarence bones in July of 1975. Eerie
> experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
> window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
>
> As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
> our topic.
> http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
>
> One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
> spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
> course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
> article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
> population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
> chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
> able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
> that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
> themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
> dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
> physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
> closed breeding groups.
>
> But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
>
> So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
> thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
> bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> > to go
> > > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> > and
> > > dark. Somebody had to be.
> >
> > Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> > mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> > ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> > have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> > ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> > Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> > and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> > early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> > he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> > Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> > but not Cecily's.
> > As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> > evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> > hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> > hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> > There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> > Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> > hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> > found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> > samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> > described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> > original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> > seems, anyone's guess.
> >
> > Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> > contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> > you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> > witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> > Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> > bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> > vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> > identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> > where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> > of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> > highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> > John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
> >
> > I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> > Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> > Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> > flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> > no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> > his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> > basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> > publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> > he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> > 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> > campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> > before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> > but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> > truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
> >
> > Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> > preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> > York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> > fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> > Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> > the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> > root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> > mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> > a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> > but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
> >
> > For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> > this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> > was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> > Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> > risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> > this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> > took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> > anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> > had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> > illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> > the 'slander' they really feared.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my opinion.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> > like
> > > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > > Plantagenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Megan
> > > > >
> > > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > > I need to stop that.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> > the
> > > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> > this
> > > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> > progenitors,
> > > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> > Further,
> > > > I may
> > > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > > Don't
> > > > > know about Edmund.
> > > > >
> > > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> > portrait
> > > > shows
> > > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> > Richard
> > > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > > also
> > > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > > entertaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> > 1483,
> > > > eg:
> > > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > > Edward "was
> > > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> > duke of
> > > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> > of
> > > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > > instruct
> > > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> > was not
> > > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> > privily
> > > > and
> > > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> > did
> > > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> > was
> > > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> > of
> > > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> > matters
> > > > were
> > > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> > place, was
> > > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > > Regius
> > > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > > born in
> > > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> > birth
> > > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> > Richard's
> > > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > > time,
> > > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > > vague
> > > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> > sermon
> > > > by
> > > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> > shortly
> > > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> > leave
> > > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > > events
> > > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > > exiles
> > > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > > halfway
> > > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> > drop in
> > > > the
> > > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> > was
> > > > a
> > > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> > he
> > > > says
> > > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > > foreign
> > > > > > princess.
> > > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> > claim
> > > > that
> > > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> > a
> > > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> > politically
> > > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> > of
> > > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > > description to
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > > minus
> > > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> > stature
> > > > and
> > > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> > make hay
> > > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> > that
> > > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> > being
> > > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> > this
> > > > > > resemblance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > > >
> > nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > > >
> > +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > > >
> > 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > > >
> > dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > > >
> > ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > > >
> > &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > > >
> > +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > > >
> > ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > > >
> > ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > > >
> > lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > > >
> > ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > > >
> > t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
for the article
William Barber wrote:
> Got a chance to see the Clarence bones in July of 1975. Eerie
> experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
> window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
>
> As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
> our topic.
> http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
>
> One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
> spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
> course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
> article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
> population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
> chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
> able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
> that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
> themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
> dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
> physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
> closed breeding groups.
>
> But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
>
> So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
> thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
> bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> > to go
> > > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> > and
> > > dark. Somebody had to be.
> >
> > Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> > mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> > ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> > have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> > ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> > Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> > and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> > early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> > he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> > Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> > but not Cecily's.
> > As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> > evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> > hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> > hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> > There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> > Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> > hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> > found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> > samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> > described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> > original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> > seems, anyone's guess.
> >
> > Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> > contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> > you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> > witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> > Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> > bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> > vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> > identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> > where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> > of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> > highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> > John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
> >
> > I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> > Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> > Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> > flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> > no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> > his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> > basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> > publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> > he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> > 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> > campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> > before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> > but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> > truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
> >
> > Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> > preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> > York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> > fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> > Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> > the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> > root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> > mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> > a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> > but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
> >
> > For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> > this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> > was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> > Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> > risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> > this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> > took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> > anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> > had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> > illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> > the 'slander' they really feared.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my opinion.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> > like
> > > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > > Plantagenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Megan
> > > > >
> > > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > > I need to stop that.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> > the
> > > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> > this
> > > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> > progenitors,
> > > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> > Further,
> > > > I may
> > > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > > Don't
> > > > > know about Edmund.
> > > > >
> > > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> > portrait
> > > > shows
> > > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> > Richard
> > > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > > also
> > > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > > entertaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> > 1483,
> > > > eg:
> > > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > > Edward "was
> > > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> > duke of
> > > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> > of
> > > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > > instruct
> > > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> > was not
> > > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> > privily
> > > > and
> > > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> > did
> > > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> > was
> > > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> > of
> > > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> > matters
> > > > were
> > > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> > place, was
> > > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > > Regius
> > > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > > born in
> > > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> > birth
> > > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> > Richard's
> > > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > > time,
> > > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > > vague
> > > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> > sermon
> > > > by
> > > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> > shortly
> > > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> > leave
> > > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > > events
> > > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > > exiles
> > > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > > halfway
> > > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> > drop in
> > > > the
> > > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> > was
> > > > a
> > > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> > he
> > > > says
> > > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > > foreign
> > > > > > princess.
> > > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> > claim
> > > > that
> > > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> > a
> > > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> > politically
> > > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> > of
> > > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > > description to
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > > minus
> > > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> > stature
> > > > and
> > > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> > make hay
> > > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> > that
> > > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> > being
> > > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> > this
> > > > > > resemblance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > > >
> > nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > > >
> > +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > > >
> > 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > > >
> > dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > > >
> > ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > > >
> > &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > > >
> > +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > > >
> > ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > > >
> > ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > > >
> > lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > > >
> > ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > > >
> > t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-09 22:57:09
Thanks, Marie. As you know, I TEND to support Jones' Hypothesis.
Actually, talking of height differences, I said Charles I, not II,
who only reached about 4'6" with a head.
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs
game
> to go
> > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> and
> > dark. Somebody had to be.
>
> Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV
should
> have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from
the
> early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet
look
> he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's
ancestor
> but not Cecily's.
> As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is,
it
> seems, anyone's guess.
>
> Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and
right
> witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the
thigh
> bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall.
The
> identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that
is
> where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel.
Hopefully,
> John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
>
> I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious.
The
> > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that
he
> > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason
is,
> no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based
on
> his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early
in
> 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
>
> Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for
instance.
> Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to
take
> root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something
of
> a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy
story,
> but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
>
> For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We
on
> this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where
richard
> was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they
feared
> Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt
at
> risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what
Clarence
> had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> the 'slander' they really feared.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> like
> > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > Plantagenet.
> > > >
> > > > Megan
> > > >
> > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > I need to stop that.
> > > >
> > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> that
> > > the
> > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> the
> > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared
to
> this
> > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> progenitors,
> > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> Further,
> > > I may
> > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in
appearance?
> > > Don't
> > > > know about Edmund.
> > > >
> > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> portrait
> > > shows
> > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show
a
> > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> Richard
> > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or
supposition I
> > > also
> > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know ,
but
> > > > > entertaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> 1483,
> > > eg:
> > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > Edward "was
> > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> duke of
> > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard,
Duke
> of
> > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to
come
> to
> > > the
> > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > instruct
> > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> was not
> > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> privily
> > > and
> > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the
same
> did
> > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King
Edward
> was
> > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard
the
> > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little,
he
> of
> > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> matters
> > > were
> > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> place, was
> > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > >
> > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > Regius
> > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard
was
> > > born in
> > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of
your
> birth
> > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> Richard's
> > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at
the
> > > time,
> > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of
Hastings'
> > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he
is
> > > vague
> > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> sermon
> > > by
> > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> shortly
> > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> leave
> > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > events
> > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-
Richard
> > > exiles
> > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > halfway
> > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> drop in
> > > the
> > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that
there
> was
> > > a
> > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact,
since
> he
> > > says
> > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > foreign
> > > > > princess.
> > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> claim
> > > that
> > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely
hints
> at
> > > it.
> > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become
such
> a
> > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> politically
> > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's
own
> > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the
gist
> of
> > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > description to
> > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on
the
> > > idea
> > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor
England,
> > > minus
> > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> stature
> > > and
> > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> make hay
> > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> that
> > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> being
> > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> this
> > > > > resemblance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > >
>
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > >
>
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > >
>
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > >
>
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > >
>
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > >
>
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > >
> > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > >
>
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > >
>
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > >
>
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > >
>
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > >
>
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > >
>
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
Call
> > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Actually, talking of height differences, I said Charles I, not II,
who only reached about 4'6" with a head.
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs
game
> to go
> > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> and
> > dark. Somebody had to be.
>
> Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV
should
> have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from
the
> early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet
look
> he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's
ancestor
> but not Cecily's.
> As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is,
it
> seems, anyone's guess.
>
> Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and
right
> witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the
thigh
> bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall.
The
> identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that
is
> where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel.
Hopefully,
> John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
>
> I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
>
> >
> > Stephen Lark wrote:
> >
> > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious.
The
> > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that
he
> > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
>
> No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason
is,
> no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based
on
> his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early
in
> 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
>
> Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for
instance.
> Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to
take
> root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something
of
> a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy
story,
> but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
>
> For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We
on
> this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where
richard
> was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they
feared
> Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt
at
> risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what
Clarence
> had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> the 'slander' they really feared.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> like
> > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > Plantagenet.
> > > >
> > > > Megan
> > > >
> > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > I need to stop that.
> > > >
> > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> that
> > > the
> > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> the
> > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared
to
> this
> > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> progenitors,
> > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> Further,
> > > I may
> > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in
appearance?
> > > Don't
> > > > know about Edmund.
> > > >
> > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> portrait
> > > shows
> > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show
a
> > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> Richard
> > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or
supposition I
> > > also
> > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know ,
but
> > > > > entertaining.
> > > > >
> > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> 1483,
> > > eg:
> > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > Edward "was
> > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> duke of
> > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard,
Duke
> of
> > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to
come
> to
> > > the
> > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > instruct
> > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> was not
> > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> privily
> > > and
> > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the
same
> did
> > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King
Edward
> was
> > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard
the
> > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little,
he
> of
> > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> matters
> > > were
> > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> place, was
> > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > >
> > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > Regius
> > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard
was
> > > born in
> > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of
your
> birth
> > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> Richard's
> > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at
the
> > > time,
> > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of
Hastings'
> > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he
is
> > > vague
> > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> sermon
> > > by
> > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> shortly
> > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> leave
> > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > events
> > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-
Richard
> > > exiles
> > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > halfway
> > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> drop in
> > > the
> > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that
there
> was
> > > a
> > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact,
since
> he
> > > says
> > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > foreign
> > > > > princess.
> > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> claim
> > > that
> > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely
hints
> at
> > > it.
> > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become
such
> a
> > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> politically
> > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's
own
> > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the
gist
> of
> > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > description to
> > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on
the
> > > idea
> > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor
England,
> > > minus
> > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> stature
> > > and
> > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> make hay
> > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> that
> > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> being
> > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> this
> > > > > resemblance?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > >
>
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > >
>
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > >
>
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > >
>
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > >
>
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > >
>
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > >
> > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > >
>
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > >
>
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > >
>
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > >
>
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > >
>
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > >
>
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > >
>
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> on
> > > the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > <mailto:-
> [email protected]?
> > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of
> > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> > > ------
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery
Call
> > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > United kingdom hotel
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > >
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-09 22:59:57
Here's the new link to the article entitled "Genealogy in the Era of
Genomics". It uses Richard as an exemplum:
http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/~zanette/s11.pdf
William Barber wrote:
> Got a chance to see the Clarence bones in July of 1975. Eerie
> experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
> window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
>
> As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
> our topic.
> http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
>
> One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
> spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
> course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
> article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
> population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
> chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
> able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
> that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
> themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
> dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
> physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
> closed breeding groups.
>
> But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
>
> So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
> thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
> bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> > to go
> > > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> > and
> > > dark. Somebody had to be.
> >
> > Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> > mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> > ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> > have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> > ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> > Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> > and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> > early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> > he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> > Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> > but not Cecily's.
> > As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> > evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> > hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> > hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> > There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> > Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> > hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> > found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> > samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> > described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> > original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> > seems, anyone's guess.
> >
> > Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> > contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> > you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> > witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> > Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> > bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> > vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> > identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> > where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> > of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> > highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> > John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
> >
> > I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> > Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> > Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> > flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> > no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> > his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> > basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> > publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> > he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> > 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> > campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> > before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> > but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> > truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
> >
> > Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> > preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> > York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> > fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> > Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> > the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> > root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> > mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> > a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> > but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
> >
> > For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> > this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> > was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> > Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> > risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> > this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> > took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> > anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> > had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> > illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> > the 'slander' they really feared.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my opinion.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> > like
> > > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > > Plantagenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Megan
> > > > >
> > > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > > I need to stop that.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> > the
> > > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> > this
> > > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> > progenitors,
> > > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> > Further,
> > > > I may
> > > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > > Don't
> > > > > know about Edmund.
> > > > >
> > > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> > portrait
> > > > shows
> > > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> > Richard
> > > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > > also
> > > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > > entertaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> > 1483,
> > > > eg:
> > > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > > Edward "was
> > > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> > duke of
> > > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> > of
> > > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > > instruct
> > > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> > was not
> > > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> > privily
> > > > and
> > > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> > did
> > > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> > was
> > > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> > of
> > > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> > matters
> > > > were
> > > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> > place, was
> > > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > > Regius
> > > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > > born in
> > > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> > birth
> > > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> > Richard's
> > > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > > time,
> > > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > > vague
> > > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> > sermon
> > > > by
> > > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> > shortly
> > > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> > leave
> > > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > > events
> > > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > > exiles
> > > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > > halfway
> > > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> > drop in
> > > > the
> > > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> > was
> > > > a
> > > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> > he
> > > > says
> > > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > > foreign
> > > > > > princess.
> > > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> > claim
> > > > that
> > > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> > a
> > > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> > politically
> > > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> > of
> > > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > > description to
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > > minus
> > > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> > stature
> > > > and
> > > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> > make hay
> > > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> > that
> > > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> > being
> > > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> > this
> > > > > > resemblance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > > >
> > nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > > >
> > +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > > >
> > 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > > >
> > dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > > >
> > ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > > >
> > &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > > >
> > +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > > >
> > ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > > >
> > ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > > >
> > lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > > >
> > ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > > >
> > t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Genomics". It uses Richard as an exemplum:
http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/~zanette/s11.pdf
William Barber wrote:
> Got a chance to see the Clarence bones in July of 1975. Eerie
> experience. There they were-- neatly piled and backlit behind a plexi
> window. I believe they had been rescued from a flooding.
>
> As for genetics, here's an interesting article on genomics related to
> our topic.
> http://cabfst28.cnea.gov.ar/%7Ezanette/s11.pd
>
> One interesting tidbit from my own experience: my daughter is the
> spitting image of my great grandfather. I remember him very well. Of
> course, this doesn't mean anything either. But in light of the above
> article which states that, statistically speaking, in a closed
> population where partners choose marriage partners at random, the
> chances are high that around the tenth generation both partners will be
> able to claim a common ancestor. In a population that is as closed as
> that of European royalty, families are constantly marrying back on
> themselves, often within a generation or two, regardless of papal
> dispensations and whatnot. So if there were going to be repetitions of
> physical characteristics, they would be inclined to occur in fairly
> closed breeding groups.
>
> But again, I would agree, this all proves nothing.
>
> So Edward's a pile of goo? Indeed, how the mighty have fallen. The one
> thing that a number of sources seem to agree upon is that Henry VIII
> bore a strong resemblance to his grandfather.
>
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Been trying to see if there are any references to physical
> > > characteristics of the Mortimers. I know it's a bit of a mugs game
> > to go
> > > down this road, but maybe one of the Rogers or Edmunds was short
> > and
> > > dark. Somebody had to be.
> >
> > Or one short and fair and another tall and dark! It is a bit of a
> > mug's game, though, isn't it, because all of us have so many
> > ancestors. There is no particular reason at all why Edward IV should
> > have resembled the first Plantagenets simply because they were his
> > ancestors in the male line and he thus bore the same surname.
> > Calculate how many ancestors he would have had living at that time
> > and you see the problem. Also, Cecily was equally descended from the
> > early Plantagenets, and if Edward had inherited the Plantagenet look
> > he could as easily have done so through her. I don't know about
> > Lionel of Clarence being 6 ft 7 in. Of course, he was York's ancestor
> > but not Cecily's.
> > As regards the Plantagenet blond, however, there is actually NO
> > evidence that Edward IV was fair. No one at the time described his
> > hair colour. Contemporary portraits all show him with dark brown
> > hair - contrast that, say, with the blond portraits of Richard II.
> > There's an interesting section on Edward's hair in Anne Sutton and
> > Livia Visser-Fuche's recnt book on the York burials at Wimdsor. The
> > hair on Edward's skeleton was apparently dark brown as it was first
> > found. The body was, however, lying in a dark goo, and all known
> > samples have been lovingly washed to a non-descript light brown
> > described by someone as the colour of elastic. Whether that, or the
> > original dark brown, more nearly represents its colour in life is, it
> > seems, anyone's guess.
> >
> > Someone asked what Clarence looked like. I've only found one
> > contemporary reference to his appearance, and that is from Rous, if
> > you want to belive him. He says he was "seemly of person, and right
> > witty, and well visaged". Mancini and Croyland both refer to
> > Clarence's eloquence, but not to his looks. Measurement of the thigh
> > bones of the two bodies (1 male, 1 female) found in the Clarence
> > vault at Tewkesbury suggests that both were about 5ft 5 in tall. The
> > identity of the bones has been questioned, but since we know that is
> > where George and Isabel were originally laid, and since the remains
> > of only one couple were found there when it was opened, it seems
> > highly likely that they are those of Clarence and Isabel. Hopefully,
> > John Ashdown-Hill's work will help answer the question properly.
> >
> > I do think there's a reference in a Burgundian source, though, to
> > Margaret having been tall. I have a slight suspicion myself that
> > Cecily may have been taller than York, which isn't something
> > flattering chroniclers would have drawn attention to.
> >
> > >
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to his
> > > > siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is obvious. The
> > > > disparity is probably greater and yet nobody has suggested that he
> > > > was illegitimate, even though science had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy. The reason is,
> > no doubt, that the claim of Edward IV's illegitimacy was not based on
> > his appearance, just that his appearance tended to confirm it. The
> > basis appears to have been his mother's own words, spoken pretty
> > publicly. Mancini talks about this, and Michael Jones is right when
> > he says there does seem to have been a rift between the two early in
> > 1469, before Clarence's rebellion. The fact that York was away on
> > campaign for such a long stretch, from 10 1/2 months to 8 months
> > before Edward's birth, might have caused some rumours before that,
> > but certainly adds weight to the idea that there may have been some
> > truth in this charge, which just refused to go away.
> >
> > Perhaps we should bear in mind that the Tudor writers on the whole
> > preferred to talk about Edward IV's illegitimacy than Elizabeth of
> > York's, so maybe their version of the events of 1483 isn't quite
> > fair. None of them name edward's first wife accurately, for instance.
> > Whatever Ralph Shaa may or may not have said about Edward IV during
> > the course of his sermon on 'bastard slips' not being allowed to take
> > root, it's worth bearing in mind that Richard was living with his
> > mother at Baynard's Castle at the time. I realise I'm in something of
> > a minority on the forum in actually believing the illegitimacy story,
> > but honestly, it does help to make much more sense of things.
> >
> > For instance, what were Rivers & co. up to at Stony Stratford? We on
> > this forum probably all believe they were up to no good where richard
> > was concerned. Many of us probably think that was because they feared
> > Richard would claim the throne (if Mancini is right, Richard felt at
> > risk from them from the moment of Clarence's death.) However, was
> > this because they knew about the precontract? I suggest, no. They
> > took NO ACTION to silence Stillington. I don't think the Queen knew
> > anything about the precontract - why would she? We know what Clarence
> > had actually been saying before his final arrest: that Edward was
> > illigitimate again. It's in the Act of Attainder. That is
> > the 'slander' they really feared.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my opinion.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Megan Lerseth
> > > > <megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that Clarence has never been described as looking
> > like
> > > > Richard, it seems most people assume he was sterotypically
> > > > Plantagenet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Megan
> > > > >
> > > > > PS- I've just noticed how often I rely on More-isms in
> > > > debate: "most people assume..."
> > > > > I need to stop that.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Barber <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > > What's interesting about the allusion to Edward's bastardy is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > physical description of Edward conforms to the description of
> > the
> > > > > stereotypically tall, fair Plantagent prince. When compared to
> > this
> > > > > stereotype, Richard is the anomaly. One of Richard's
> > progenitors,
> > > > > Lionel, Duke of Clarence, is alleged to have stood 6' 7".
> > Further,
> > > > I may
> > > > > be mistaken, but wasn't Clarence more like Edward in appearance?
> > > > Don't
> > > > > know about Edmund.
> > > > >
> > > > > This episode is not one of Richard's high points.
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Moira Winder
> > > > > > <moirawinder.macmail@m...> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello Everyone
> > > > > > > I agree with everything. I also think that Richard's
> > portrait
> > > > shows
> > > > > > a handsomer face that his brother's and Edward IV does show a
> > > > > > resemblance to Henry VIII. I think I read somewhere that
> > Richard
> > > > > > resemblesd his father? Was this academic fact or supposition I
> > > > also
> > > > > > remeber reading the Josephine Tey book - fiction I know , but
> > > > > > entertaining.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was reportedly one of the things that was said in June
> > 1483,
> > > > eg:
> > > > > > Mancini: He said that Richard had preachers proclaim that
> > > > Edward "was
> > > > > > conceived in adultery and in every way was unlike the late
> > duke of
> > > > > > York, whose son he was falsely said to be, but Richard, Duke
> > of
> > > > > > Gloucester, who altogether resembled his father, was to come
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > throne as the legitimate successor."
> > > > > > Vergil: Ralph Shaa, on Gloucester's instructions, "began to
> > > > instruct
> > > > > > the people, by many reasons, how that the late King Edward
> > was not
> > > > > > begotten by richard, Duke of York, but by some other, who
> > privily
> > > > and
> > > > > > by stealth had had knowledge of his mother, and that the same
> > did
> > > > > > manifestly appear by sure demonstrations, because King Edward
> > was
> > > > > > neither in physiognomy nor shape of body like unto Richard the
> > > > > > father; for he was high of stature; the other very little, he
> > of
> > > > > > large face, the other short and round. Howbeit, if such
> > matters
> > > > were
> > > > > > well considered, no man could doubt but Richard, now in
> > place, was
> > > > > > the duke's true son. . . "
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How much of this happened is conjectural, of course. Titulus
> > > > Regius
> > > > > > does hint at Edward's bastardy, and notes that as Richard was
> > > > born in
> > > > > > England the country "may have more certain knowledge of your
> > birth
> > > > > > and filiation abovesaid." However, it doesn't mention
> > Richard's
> > > > > > physical likeness to his father. Mancini was in England at the
> > > > time,
> > > > > > but still got a lot wrong (most notably the order of Hastings'
> > > > > > execution and the delivery of York from sanctuary), and he is
> > > > vague
> > > > > > about the preaching - apparently not aware of the one big
> > sermon
> > > > by
> > > > > > Ralph Shaa at Paul's Cross. Though he says he left England
> > shortly
> > > > > > after Richard's coronation, I sometimes wonder if he didn't
> > leave
> > > > > > London a lot earlier, and got a lot of his information about
> > > > events
> > > > > > in the capital in June secondhand, possibly from anti-Richard
> > > > exiles
> > > > > > like Dr Argentine in France. There's a sharp change of tone
> > > > halfway
> > > > > > through his account, from pro to anti Richard, and also a
> > drop in
> > > > the
> > > > > > accuracy of his information. For instance, he knew that there
> > was
> > > > a
> > > > > > precontract, but didn't have the woman's name. In fact, since
> > he
> > > > says
> > > > > > Edward married no 1 by proxy, he possibly imagined she was a
> > > > foreign
> > > > > > princess.
> > > > > > As for Vergil, he also falls short of having Shaa actually
> > claim
> > > > that
> > > > > > Richard III looked like Richard Duke of York. He merely hints
> > at
> > > > it.
> > > > > > This is probably because Richard's appearance had become such
> > a
> > > > > > symbol of evil by this time that it would have been
> > politically
> > > > > > incorrect to attribute the same appearance to Henry VIII's own
> > > > > > grandfather! Nonetheless, he does hint that this was the gist
> > of
> > > > > > Shaa's argument, so I don't know how far to credit his
> > > > description to
> > > > > > Richard Duke of York - it may well have been just based on the
> > > > idea
> > > > > > of Richard III's appearance that was current in Tudor England,
> > > > minus
> > > > > > the actual deformities. In other words the shortness of
> > stature
> > > > and
> > > > > > the smallness of the face may perhaps be exaggerated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do think, though, that even if Richard didn't have Shaa
> > make hay
> > > > > > over Edward IV's illegitimacy quite so blatantly, the idea
> > that
> > > > > > Richard resembled his father may well have been around, and
> > being
> > > > > > discussed by his supporters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does anyone know offhand of any other sources which mention
> > this
> > > > > > resemblance?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > > United kingdom calling card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
> > > >
> > nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
> > > >
> > +florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
> > > > 9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > > > > > United kingdom flower delivery
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
> > > >
> > 2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
> > > >
> > dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
> > > > =179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > > > > > Call united kingdom
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
> > > >
> > ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
> > > >
> > &w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
> > > > tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > United kingdom florist
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
> > > >
> > +kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
> > > >
> > ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
> > > > g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > > > > > United kingdom phone card
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
> > > >
> > ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
> > > >
> > lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
> > > > .sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > > > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
> > > >
> > t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
> > > >
> > ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
> > > >
> > t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
> > > > 4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
> > on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----
> > > > ------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > > United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
> > > > united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
> > > > United kingdom hotel
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit your group "" on the web.
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > [email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>>
>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>>
>
> > Call united kingdom
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>>
>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>>
>
> > United kingdom phone card
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>>
>
> > United kingdom hotel
> >
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the
> web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> >
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-09 23:16:06
--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> If the portraits of Richard and his brother Edward are good likeness
of the two men I always thought Richard much better and more
interesting looking. In fact in the portraits I have seen of Edward he
seems rather plain and bland.
>
> I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
I have read that Henry VII was not at all fond of (I believe the term
was "loathed") his son and namesake, and one reason was his strong
resemblance to his grandfather Edward IV.
Katy
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> If the portraits of Richard and his brother Edward are good likeness
of the two men I always thought Richard much better and more
interesting looking. In fact in the portraits I have seen of Edward he
seems rather plain and bland.
>
> I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
I have read that Henry VII was not at all fond of (I believe the term
was "loathed") his son and namesake, and one reason was his strong
resemblance to his grandfather Edward IV.
Katy
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-10 00:15:10
That's an interesting thing to consider. We have actually discussed
the question of parental age at the scoliosis forum, but a poll of
some 50 members produced inconclusive results. I'd like to run the
poll again sometime; our membership has grown considerably since
then :)
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
the question of parental age at the scoliosis forum, but a poll of
some 50 members produced inconclusive results. I'd like to run the
poll again sometime; our membership has grown considerably since
then :)
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-10 00:26:23
My daughter has scoliosis (which only became apparent when she neared puberty), and I was 34 when she was born, with my husband in his mid 40's. My son, who was born when I was 32, has no physical problems, but is autistic. No recent family history of either as far as I know.
Susan Higginbotham
www.susanhigginbotham
>
> From: "antonia_barker" <antonia_barker@...>
> Date: 2005/11/09 Wed PM 07:14:12 EST
> To:
> Subject: Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
>
> That's an interesting thing to consider. We have actually discussed
the question of parental age at the scoliosis forum, but a poll of
some 50 members produced inconclusive results. I'd like to run the
poll again sometime; our membership has grown considerably since
then :)
Susan Higginbotham
www.susanhigginbotham
>
> From: "antonia_barker" <antonia_barker@...>
> Date: 2005/11/09 Wed PM 07:14:12 EST
> To:
> Subject: Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
>
> That's an interesting thing to consider. We have actually discussed
the question of parental age at the scoliosis forum, but a poll of
some 50 members produced inconclusive results. I'd like to run the
poll again sometime; our membership has grown considerably since
then :)
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-10 00:30:32
Hi Megan, nice to meet you :) Leg length inequality is actually a
common cause of "non-structural" scoliosis, since it forces one half
of the body to function and differently to the other and the unequal
forces can eventually pull the spine out of alignment. In such cases
the spine itself doesn't have a permanent curve, but the sufferer
will be walking around with their spine curved anyway, to compensate
for the leg length discrepancy. As you probably know (but I'll
mention for the benefit of others here), the most common treatment
for this is to have a raise added to one's shoe on the shorter side,
although children are usually treated with surgery to lengthen the
shorter leg. Please do keep an eye on your back though - especially
if you develop back pain.
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> The appearance of a hunched back might have nothing to do with the
back at all. I have no spinal conditions, but my legs are unequal by
about an inch and a half. Even this tiny difference makes walking a
somewhat tiring and painful exercise, making me sort of "droop".
I've also noticed a tendency to hold my right shoulder higher when
tense.
>
>
>
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
common cause of "non-structural" scoliosis, since it forces one half
of the body to function and differently to the other and the unequal
forces can eventually pull the spine out of alignment. In such cases
the spine itself doesn't have a permanent curve, but the sufferer
will be walking around with their spine curved anyway, to compensate
for the leg length discrepancy. As you probably know (but I'll
mention for the benefit of others here), the most common treatment
for this is to have a raise added to one's shoe on the shorter side,
although children are usually treated with surgery to lengthen the
shorter leg. Please do keep an eye on your back though - especially
if you develop back pain.
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> The appearance of a hunched back might have nothing to do with the
back at all. I have no spinal conditions, but my legs are unequal by
about an inch and a half. Even this tiny difference makes walking a
somewhat tiring and painful exercise, making me sort of "droop".
I've also noticed a tendency to hold my right shoulder higher when
tense.
>
>
>
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-10 00:36:48
Hi Helen,
You-re right - most people are lopsided, and most people will
actually have a small bend in their spine. Spinal curvatures are
only classed as "scoliosis" if they are measured as deviating ten or
more degrees from the vertical, and only require treatment if they
are twenty degrees or more in a skeletally immature person, or forty
degrees or more in an adult. So, hopefully I haven't started anyone
panicking because their spine is slightly curved :)
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> If the portraits of Richard and his brother Edward are good
likeness of the two men I always thought Richard much better and
more interesting looking. In fact in the portraits I have seen of
Edward he seems rather plain and bland.
>
> I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
>
> Of cause looks shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does and has
affected how people are viewed by others.
>
> I have heard that nearly everyone is slightly lopsided. I am
certainly, one foot larger than the other, uneven shoulders etc.
Luckily I don't think it would be obvious to others.
>
> Helen
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@y...> wrote:
> As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
> brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait
Gallery
> picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
> his time through worry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if
Richard
> had
> > some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we
should
> > remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
> would
> > have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414,
which
> would
> > make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
> about the
> > effects of having children later in life stands these days, but
it
> may
> > be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart
abnormality
> known
> > as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
> The
> > issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
on
> one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have
> > > been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered
> to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was
> done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
his
> image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
> saw
> > > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines,
Mancini
> and
> > > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
> known,
> > > and only a couple of years after his death.
> > >
> > > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
> been
> > > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted
later
> (the
> > > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it
was
> > > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
> None of
> > > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
> would
> > > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty
much
> > > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years,
and
> > > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's
death
> (5
> > > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new
bride,
> so
> > > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
> sitting and
> > > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > >
> > > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud
your
> good
> > > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things.
My
> left
> > > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
> any
> > > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
> can or
> > > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York
reference
> to
> > > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
> indeed
> > > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when
a
> man
> > > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
> whether
> > > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
> that
> > > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
> scathing
> > > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's
epithet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
suits
> of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > > slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
> hips
> > > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other.
I
> > > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
> however,
> > > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
> all,
> > > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In
fact,
> there
> > > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
> belonged
> > > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
> made a
> > > deformed individual.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
You-re right - most people are lopsided, and most people will
actually have a small bend in their spine. Spinal curvatures are
only classed as "scoliosis" if they are measured as deviating ten or
more degrees from the vertical, and only require treatment if they
are twenty degrees or more in a skeletally immature person, or forty
degrees or more in an adult. So, hopefully I haven't started anyone
panicking because their spine is slightly curved :)
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Helen Rowe
<sweethelly2003@y...> wrote:
>
> If the portraits of Richard and his brother Edward are good
likeness of the two men I always thought Richard much better and
more interesting looking. In fact in the portraits I have seen of
Edward he seems rather plain and bland.
>
> I think Edward looks rather similar to his awful grandson.
>
> Of cause looks shouldn't matter but unfortunately it does and has
affected how people are viewed by others.
>
> I have heard that nearly everyone is slightly lopsided. I am
certainly, one foot larger than the other, uneven shoulders etc.
Luckily I don't think it would be obvious to others.
>
> Helen
>
>
> amertzanis <amertzanis@y...> wrote:
> As for the same author's comments about Richard's lacking his
> brothers beauty I always thought that the National Portrait
Gallery
> picture of richard showed quite a handsome man if one aged before
> his time through worry.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if
Richard
> had
> > some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we
should
> > remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
> would
> > have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414,
which
> would
> > make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
> about the
> > effects of having children later in life stands these days, but
it
> may
> > be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart
abnormality
> known
> > as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
> The
> > issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
spine
> that
> > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders
to
> > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump
on
> one
> > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve
that
> > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
> the
> > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> termed "Congenital
> > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> termed "Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
> and
> > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
person's
> > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well
have
> > > been
> > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
> that
> > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
altered
> to
> > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this
was
> done
> > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect
his
> image
> > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > >
> > > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
> saw
> > > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines,
Mancini
> and
> > > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
> known,
> > > and only a couple of years after his death.
> > >
> > > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
> been
> > > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted
later
> (the
> > > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it
was
> > > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
> None of
> > > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
> would
> > > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty
much
> > > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years,
and
> > > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's
death
> (5
> > > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new
bride,
> so
> > > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
> sitting and
> > > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
> they are
> > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> > >
> > > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud
your
> good
> > > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things.
My
> left
> > > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
> any
> > > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
> can or
> > > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York
reference
> to
> > > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
> indeed
> > > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when
a
> man
> > > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
> whether
> > > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
> that
> > > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
> scathing
> > > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's
epithet.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
> armour if
> > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century
suits
> of
> > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that
have
> > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
> humps),
> > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
deformity.
> > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > > slight
> > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
> without
> > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > >
> > > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
> hips
> > > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other.
I
> > > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
> however,
> > > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
> all,
> > > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In
fact,
> there
> > > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
> belonged
> > > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
> made a
> > > deformed individual.
> > > >
> > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
> even,
> > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to
wear
> > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > >
> > > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> > >
> > > Marie
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------
> > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >
> > > * Visit your group "
> > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> the web.
> > >
> > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > [email protected]
> > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> subject=Unsubscribe>
> > >
> > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> of
> > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
--
> -------
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
>
>
>
[Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-10 11:52:13
It's always seemed to me that Henry VIII was far more the grandson of
Edward IV than the son of Henry Tudor - both in appearance and
behaviour.
This is paralleled in my own family. My sister's sons are entirely
different: the eldest resembles her and myself, with dark hair and eyes
and an introverted, bookish nature. The youngest son however is the
image of his father, broad, blond and blue eyed with an outgoing
personality. So it seems that psychology as well as physical
appearance can be inherited in the lottery of genetics.
All of which makes the search for Plantagenet characteristics amongst
the 15th century nobility futile, as most of them were decended from
Edward III several times over.
Edward IV than the son of Henry Tudor - both in appearance and
behaviour.
This is paralleled in my own family. My sister's sons are entirely
different: the eldest resembles her and myself, with dark hair and eyes
and an introverted, bookish nature. The youngest son however is the
image of his father, broad, blond and blue eyed with an outgoing
personality. So it seems that psychology as well as physical
appearance can be inherited in the lottery of genetics.
All of which makes the search for Plantagenet characteristics amongst
the 15th century nobility futile, as most of them were decended from
Edward III several times over.
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-10 12:55:05
Another similarity is that both Edward IV and Henry VIII went to seed physically from their late thirties. I often wonder whether Edward would have been as much of a physical wreck as Henry had he lived beyond 40. Henry died at 55.
Ann
theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
It's always seemed to me that Henry VIII was far more the grandson of
Edward IV than the son of Henry Tudor - both in appearance and
behaviour.
Ann
theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
It's always seemed to me that Henry VIII was far more the grandson of
Edward IV than the son of Henry Tudor - both in appearance and
behaviour.
Charles Stuart (was New member w/interest in evidence for Richard's
2005-11-10 13:56:04
Given the considerable physical differences between Charles I and
his son Charles II - one very short for the era, the other notably
tall - and no suggestion that I have ever heard that Charles II was
not legitimate, then any suggestion of Edward IV not being the son
of Richard Duke of York would need to be based on more than a lack
of physical similarity.
Richard
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Marie. As you know, I TEND to support Jones' Hypothesis.
> Actually, talking of height differences, I said Charles I, not II,
> who only reached about 4'6" with a head.
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to
> > > > his siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is
> > > > obvious. The disparity is probably greater and yet nobody
> > > > has suggested that he was illegitimate, even though science
> > > > had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy.
his son Charles II - one very short for the era, the other notably
tall - and no suggestion that I have ever heard that Charles II was
not legitimate, then any suggestion of Edward IV not being the son
of Richard Duke of York would need to be based on more than a lack
of physical similarity.
Richard
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Marie. As you know, I TEND to support Jones' Hypothesis.
> Actually, talking of height differences, I said Charles I, not II,
> who only reached about 4'6" with a head.
>
> --- In , "mariewalsh2003"
> <marie@r...> wrote:
> > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > >
> > > > A very interesting thread. Given that I am reading about the
> > > > Gunpowder Plot at present, Charles I was very dissimilar to
> > > > his siblings, particulary in height and the comparison is
> > > > obvious. The disparity is probably greater and yet nobody
> > > > has suggested that he was illegitimate, even though science
> > > > had moved on by 120 years.
> >
> > No, indeed no one questioned Charles II's legitimacy.
Re: Richard's height (New member w/interest in evidence for Richard
2005-11-10 14:00:11
I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Richard
--- In , "antonia_barker"
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Richard
--- In , "antonia_barker"
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-10 21:41:10
Well, there you go.
I am sixteen, and last year our school play actually was Shakespeare's Richard III. None of the guys in class wanted to play Richard, so I was assigned the part.
I immediately began thinking of ways to make the costume better. First of all, a lot of makeup was necessary to make me look more masculine. There was a wig (I haven't seen that thing since, and I'm pretty sure that it was recycled by Johnny Depp in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if that gives you an idea of what it looked like), a "hump" under my blouse, and a brace on my left arm.
Trouble began when I decided that I'd use my left leg (which is naturally my weaker and shorter) as the bad leg, but that meant using my left arm to operate a crutch, and it was supposed to be pretty weak itself. So I, rather ironically, had to reverse my own minor limp onstage.
antonia_barker <antonia_barker@...> wrote:
Hi Megan, nice to meet you :) Leg length inequality is actually a
common cause of "non-structural" scoliosis, since it forces one half
of the body to function and differently to the other and the unequal
forces can eventually pull the spine out of alignment. In such cases
the spine itself doesn't have a permanent curve, but the sufferer
will be walking around with their spine curved anyway, to compensate
for the leg length discrepancy. As you probably know (but I'll
mention for the benefit of others here), the most common treatment
for this is to have a raise added to one's shoe on the shorter side,
although children are usually treated with surgery to lengthen the
shorter leg. Please do keep an eye on your back though - especially
if you develop back pain.
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> The appearance of a hunched back might have nothing to do with the
back at all. I have no spinal conditions, but my legs are unequal by
about an inch and a half. Even this tiny difference makes walking a
somewhat tiring and painful exercise, making me sort of "droop".
I've also noticed a tendency to hold my right shoulder higher when
tense.
>
>
>
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
I am sixteen, and last year our school play actually was Shakespeare's Richard III. None of the guys in class wanted to play Richard, so I was assigned the part.
I immediately began thinking of ways to make the costume better. First of all, a lot of makeup was necessary to make me look more masculine. There was a wig (I haven't seen that thing since, and I'm pretty sure that it was recycled by Johnny Depp in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, if that gives you an idea of what it looked like), a "hump" under my blouse, and a brace on my left arm.
Trouble began when I decided that I'd use my left leg (which is naturally my weaker and shorter) as the bad leg, but that meant using my left arm to operate a crutch, and it was supposed to be pretty weak itself. So I, rather ironically, had to reverse my own minor limp onstage.
antonia_barker <antonia_barker@...> wrote:
Hi Megan, nice to meet you :) Leg length inequality is actually a
common cause of "non-structural" scoliosis, since it forces one half
of the body to function and differently to the other and the unequal
forces can eventually pull the spine out of alignment. In such cases
the spine itself doesn't have a permanent curve, but the sufferer
will be walking around with their spine curved anyway, to compensate
for the leg length discrepancy. As you probably know (but I'll
mention for the benefit of others here), the most common treatment
for this is to have a raise added to one's shoe on the shorter side,
although children are usually treated with surgery to lengthen the
shorter leg. Please do keep an eye on your back though - especially
if you develop back pain.
Regards,
Antonia
--- In , Megan Lerseth
<megan_phntmgrl@s...> wrote:
>
> The appearance of a hunched back might have nothing to do with the
back at all. I have no spinal conditions, but my legs are unequal by
about an inch and a half. Even this tiny difference makes walking a
somewhat tiring and painful exercise, making me sort of "droop".
I've also noticed a tendency to hold my right shoulder higher when
tense.
>
>
>
>
> This discussion came up elsewhere, and I suggested that if Richard
had
> some problems that could be considered to be congenital, we should
> remember that his father was born in 1411, which means that he
would
> have been 41 when Richard was born. Cecily was born in 1414, which
would
> make her 38 at Richard's birth. I'm not sure where the debate
about the
> effects of having children later in life stands these days, but it
may
> be a consideration. My daughter was born with a heart abnormality
known
> as Tetralogy of Fallot. My wife was 31 and I was 33 at the time.
The
> issue of age was raised, but I was never totally convinced.
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > --- In , "antonia_barker"
> > <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> > >> Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the spine
that
> > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the shoulders to
> > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a hump on
one
> > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards curve that
> > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump deformity.
> > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > >
> > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the shape of
the
> > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
termed "Congenital
> > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most commonly)
> > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
termed "Idiopathic
> > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the curve,
and
> > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a person's
> > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may well have
> > been
> > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a rib hump
that
> > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to the
> > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been altered
to
> > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that this was
done
> > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait reflect his
image
> > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> >
> > Hi, Antonia, and welcome.
> > The question of Richard's deformity is a perplexing one. No one
> > mentioned anything in his lifetime, which doesn't sound that
> > surprising until you remember how many of the commentators who
saw
> > him and wrote about him were not English - eg Commines, Mancini
and
> > Von Poppelau. On the other hand, the first reference to him as
> > a "crouchback" comes from York wehre his appearance was well
known,
> > and only a couple of years after his death.
> >
> > Although the portraits we have are believed to be copies of an
> > original painted during Richard's lifetime, that original has
been
> > lost. The one where the shoulder line has been overpainted later
(the
> > National Portait Gallery copy) is not one of the earliest; it was
> > both painted, and altered, many years after Richard's death.
None of
> > the earlier versions show noticeably uneven shoulders. So it
would
> > appear that Richard died leaving a portrait showing a pretty much
> > normal shoulderline. Besides, he only reigned for two years, and
> > possibly didn't have the portrait done until after Anne's death
(5
> > months before his own), when he was negotiating for a new bride,
so
> > there wouldn't have been enough time between the original
sitting and
> > Bosworth for any such problem to have noticeably worsened.
> >
> > >
> > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders, whether
they are
> > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of scoliosis.
> >
> > I defer to your knowledge of scoliosis, and totally applaud your
good
> > work. Uneven shoulders can, however, be due to other things. My
left
> > shoulder is higher than my right, but I do not apparently have
any
> > scoliosis. Simple bad posture habits, persistent carrying of a
> > shoulder bag, flat feet, uneven leg length - all these either
can or
> > will affect the shoulderline. However, the early York reference
to
> > Richard being a crouchback, if it was meant literally, would
indeed
> > suggest some degree of spinal curvature. The problem is, when a
man
> > claims that Richard was "a hypocrite and a courchback" - two
> > apparently completely unrelated ideas - you have to wonder
whether
> > the word 'crouchback' may have had some figurative meaning in
> > medieval York. I've tried dictionaries, but the OED is adamant
that
> > it never meant anything other than hunchback, and is very
scathing
> > about the crusader interpretation of Edmund Crouchback's epithet.
> >
> >
> > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to wear
armour if
> > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th century suits
of
> > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys that have
> > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild rib-
humps),
> > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the deformity.
> > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity from a
> > slight
> > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition that
without
> > > treatment would cause premature death.
> >
> > Having a dancing daughter, I have been made aware that uneven
hips
> > and shoulders are a fairly common, but temporary, feature of
> > adolescence, as one side of the body grows ahead of the other. I
> > couldn't comment about the rib-humps though. I have read,
however,
> > that many of the "suits" of armour on display are not suits at
all,
> > but composites - bits and pieces which some past owner fitted
> > together because he wanted to have a "suit of armour" to put on
> > display but couldn't actually get hold of a whole one. In fact,
there
> > is just such a suit somewhere which was long claimed to have
belonged
> > to Richard III because it gives the impression of having been
made a
> > deformed individual.
> > >
> > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is extant? Or
even,
> > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and shoes to wear
> > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> >
> > Nothing that can be identified as his, sadly.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
-------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call
united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card
United kingdom hotel
>
> ---------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>
> Visit your group "" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] New member with interest in evidenc
2005-11-11 09:29:26
I mentioned Robert Cecil because his "deformity" was said by the
Plotters to be the sign of an immoral character.
- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Wonder if anyone inherited all the various royal problems:
scoliosis,
> prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding, the
> individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then, if
he
> or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may also
have
> contracted syphilis.
>
> And here we think we have problems ;-)
>
> antonia_barker wrote:
>
> >
> > Exactly - so, in the unlikely event that Eugenie's scoliosis was a
> > familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
> > be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself
and
> > Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
> >
> >
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> > > marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
> > one
> > > would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
> > likely
> > > to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
> > bloody
> > > dysfunctional ;-)
> > >
> > > antonia_barker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess
Eugenie
> > of
> > > > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the
Royal
> > > > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has
had
> > > > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> > > >
> > > > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal
line, I
> > > > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > > > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > > > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
> > via
> > > > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in
between
> > > > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
> > one)
> > > > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
> > able
> > > > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
> > one
> > > > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would
be
> > > > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives
had
> > any
> > > > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
> > ever
> > > > have cause to be documented.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , William Barber
> > > > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
> > although
> > > > I
> > > > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
> > interesting
> > > > to
> > > > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
> > two
> > > > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
> > porphyria
> > > > > (apparently).
> > > > >
> > > > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for
breeding
> > > > purposes,
> > > > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
> > population
> > > > over
> > > > > the centuries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: William Barber
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who
was
> > > > nicknamed
> > > > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
> > referred
> > > > to a
> > > > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
> > might as
> > > > easily
> > > > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > > > Interestingly, there
> > > > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of
Edward
> > I,
> > > > who was
> > > > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > > > Plantagenets was
> > > > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
> > story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > > > character of
> > > > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
> > spinal
> > > > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a
twisted
> > > > mind in a
> > > > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
> > media
> > > > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
> > evil or
> > > > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue
to
> > > > adversely
> > > > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
> > treated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
> > scoliosis and
> > > > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to
the "hunchback"
> > > > deformity,
> > > > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > > > Richard was a
> > > > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity
is
> > not
> > > > a cause
> > > > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the
media
> > > > helps to
> > > > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III
to
> > be a
> > > > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
> > the
> > > > evidence
> > > > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback".
Through
> > > > research and
> > > > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably
knowledgeable
> > > > about
> > > > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
> > hope
> > > > that I
> > > > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
> > understanding of
> > > > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
> > spine
> > > > that
> > > > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
> > shoulders
> > > > to
> > > > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
> > hump
> > > > on one
> > > > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards
curve
> > > > that
> > > > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
> > deformity.
> > > > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
> > shape of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > > > termed "Congenital
> > > > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
> > commonly)
> > > > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > > > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
> > curve,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > > > person's
> > > > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
> > well
> > > > have been
> > > > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a
rib
> > hump
> > > > that
> > > > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to
the
> > > > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > > > altered to
> > > > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
> > this
> > > > was done
> > > > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait
reflect
> > > > his image
> > > > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
> > whether
> > > > they are
> > > > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
> > scoliosis.
> > > > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to
wear
> > > > armour if
> > > > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th
century
> > > > suits of
> > > > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
> > rib-
> > > > humps),
> > > > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > > > deformity.
> > > > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
> > from
> > > > a slight
> > > > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition
that
> > > > without
> > > > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
> > extant? Or
> > > > even,
> > > > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and
shoes to
> > > > wear
> > > > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears
had
> > > > spinal
> > > > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in
many
> > > > cases of
> > > > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form.
In
> > > > addition,
> > > > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > > > Nicholas von
> > > > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical
appearance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > > > London, UK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > >
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > > > the web.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > > > > > > -
[email protected]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of
> > > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
> > web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of
> > > > > > Service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms
> > > > of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> > of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Plotters to be the sign of an immoral character.
- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> Wonder if anyone inherited all the various royal problems:
scoliosis,
> prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding, the
> individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then, if
he
> or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may also
have
> contracted syphilis.
>
> And here we think we have problems ;-)
>
> antonia_barker wrote:
>
> >
> > Exactly - so, in the unlikely event that Eugenie's scoliosis was a
> > familial thing and could be linked to Richard III, there'd have to
> > be many other cases occurring in the generations between herself
and
> > Edward III. It will be interesting to hear of any others :)
> >
> >
> > --- In , William Barber
> > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > >
> > > The problems with royals is that, until very recently, they kept
> > > marrying back on themselves, so that genetic dispersement, which
> > one
> > > would expect to find over a great number of generations, is less
> > likely
> > > to occur among this group. Maybe that's why they were often so
> > bloody
> > > dysfunctional ;-)
> > >
> > > antonia_barker wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fascinating replies, thanks!
> > > >
> > > > I've had one American member of my forum ask if Princess
Eugenie
> > of
> > > > York's scoliosis could be due to a genetic trait within the
Royal
> > > > family. Eugenie is Prince Andrew's younger daughter, and has
had
> > > > surgery to arrest her spinal curvature.
> > > >
> > > > Notwithstanding the amount of inbreeding within the Royal
line, I
> > > > doubt there's any basis for this unless we can find spinal
> > > > deformities regularly popping up in the generations in between
> > > > Edward III and Eugenie (Edward III being their common ancestor
> > via
> > > > Henry VII). It's a very weak link, with 27 generations in
between
> > > > them, and any scoliosis gene that Edward carried (if there is
> > one)
> > > > would have to have an extremely strong prevalence to have been
> > able
> > > > to reach Eugenie! Given the inbreeding within the Royal lines,
> > one
> > > > would expect it to occur quite regularly, as with haemophilia.
> > > >
> > > > Scoliosis more often occurs in females than males - it would
be
> > > > interesting to know if any of Richard III's female relatives
had
> > any
> > > > spinal conditions. Although, being women, I doubt these would
> > ever
> > > > have cause to be documented.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , William Barber
> > > > <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Cecil is certainly referred to as having a hunched back,
> > although
> > > > I
> > > > > don't think he had royal blood. It would certainly be
> > interesting
> > > > to
> > > > > look for other royals with this problem. Of course the other
> > two
> > > > > European royal congenital problems were haemophilia and
> > porphyria
> > > > > (apparently).
> > > > >
> > > > > European nobility was a pretty closed population for
breeding
> > > > purposes,
> > > > > and the same problems do turn up frequently within that
> > population
> > > > over
> > > > > the centuries.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen Lark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is Robert Cecil another case in point?
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: William Barber
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:45 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: New member with
> > > > interest in
> > > > > > evidence for Richard's "deformity"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Edward I had a brother, Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, who
was
> > > > nicknamed
> > > > > > Crouchback, but it is not certain that the sobriquet
> > referred
> > > > to a
> > > > > > deformity. Since Edmund had been on Crusade, the name
> > might as
> > > > easily
> > > > > > have referred to the cross he wore on his surcoat.
> > > > Interestingly, there
> > > > > > was a story that he was really the older brother of
Edward
> > I,
> > > > who was
> > > > > > shoved aside because of his deformity. Henry IV tried to
> > use
> > > > this
> > > > > > argument to prove that the Lancastrian branch of the
> > > > Plantagenets was
> > > > > > the senior line of the family. There was no basis to the
> > story.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Antonia_barker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello everyone, I'm a new member here.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I fully support the promotion of the "truth" about the
> > > > character of
> > > > > > > Richard III. Speaking as someone born with a severe
> > spinal
> > > > > > > curvature, I can say that the medieval idea of "a
twisted
> > > > mind in a
> > > > > > > twisted body" is still perpetuated today, and negative
> > media
> > > > > > > representations of people with spinal deformities as
> > evil or
> > > > > > > pitiable (such as Quasimodo and Richard III) continue
to
> > > > adversely
> > > > > > > effect the way that people with such conditions are
> > treated.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I help to run a web-based forum for people with
> > scoliosis and
> > > > > > > kyphosis, the conditions that can lead to
the "hunchback"
> > > > deformity,
> > > > > > > and we are all in agreement about this. Whether or not
> > > > Richard was a
> > > > > > > hunchback does not bother us - these days, deformity
is
> > not
> > > > a cause
> > > > > > > for shame - but we the find it frustrating that the
media
> > > > helps to
> > > > > > > perpetuate a medieval belief.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, as a historian I personally find Richard III
to
> > be a
> > > > > > > fascinating character, and am interested in looking at
> > the
> > > > evidence
> > > > > > > to support whether or not he was a "hunchback".
Through
> > > > research and
> > > > > > > work for the forum I have become reasonably
knowledgeable
> > > > about
> > > > > > > spinal deformities and their causes and effects, and I
> > hope
> > > > that I
> > > > > > > may be able to use this to contribute to the
> > understanding of
> > > > > > > Richard III's possible deformity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoliosis is a lateral (side-to-side) curvature of the
> > spine
> > > > that
> > > > > > > often causes the spine to twist round, leading the
> > shoulders
> > > > to
> > > > > > > become uneven and the ribs to curve upwards to form a
> > hump
> > > > on one
> > > > > > > side; Kyphosis is an exaggerated forwards-backwards
curve
> > > > that
> > > > > > > causes an excessively rounded but symmetrical hump
> > deformity.
> > > > > > > Kyphoscoliosis combines elements of both conditions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scoliosis can be the result of abnormalities in the
> > shape of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > vertebrae present at birth, in which case it is
> > > > termed "Congenital
> > > > > > > Scoliosis", or it may develop in childhood or (most
> > commonly)
> > > > > > > adolescence, with no known cause (whence it is
> > > > termed "Idiopathic
> > > > > > > Scoliosis"). Depending on the initial severity of the
> > curve,
> > > > and
> > > > > > > without treatment, scoliosis may progress throughout a
> > > > person's
> > > > > > > life. Thus, if Richard III had this condition, he may
> > well
> > > > have been
> > > > > > > born with no visible deformity and then developed a
rib
> > hump
> > > > that
> > > > > > > increased in its severity as he aged. With regards to
the
> > > > > > > contemporary portrait of him that appears to have been
> > > > altered to
> > > > > > > make his shoulders uneven - could it be possible that
> > this
> > > > was done
> > > > > > > during his lifetime in order to make the portrait
reflect
> > > > his image
> > > > > > > more accurately as his deformity became more marked?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reports that Richard III had uneven shoulders,
> > whether
> > > > they are
> > > > > > > true or not, would suggest that he had a form of
> > scoliosis.
> > > > > > > Regarding the argument that he would not be able to
wear
> > > > armour if
> > > > > > > he had a deformity - I have certainly seen 16th
century
> > > > suits of
> > > > > > > armour that have been custom-made for adolescent boys
> > that
> > > > have
> > > > > > > evidence of scoliosis (uneven hips and shoulders, mild
> > rib-
> > > > humps),
> > > > > > > but I guess this would depend on the severity of the
> > > > deformity.
> > > > > > > Scoliosis and Kyphosis can of course range in severity
> > from
> > > > a slight
> > > > > > > curvature to an extremely severe disabling condition
that
> > > > without
> > > > > > > treatment would cause premature death.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I was wondering if any of Richard III's armour is
> > extant? Or
> > > > even,
> > > > > > > his footwear? An uneven body can cause boots and
shoes to
> > > > wear
> > > > > > > unevenly, especially if the deformity is a marked one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears
had
> > > > spinal
> > > > > > > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in
many
> > > > cases of
> > > > > > > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form.
In
> > > > addition,
> > > > > > > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic
> > > > Scoliosis seem
> > > > > > > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with
> > > > Nicholas von
> > > > > > > Poppelau's description of Richard's physical
appearance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > Antonia Barker
> > > > > > > London, UK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > > >
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > > > the web.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
> > > > > > > -
[email protected]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of
> > > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a.. Visit your group "" on the
> > web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> > > > Terms of
> > > > > > Service.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > > >
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
> > > > the web.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > <mailto:-
> > [email protected]?
> > > > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> > Terms
> > > > of
> > > > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
---
> > ----
> > > > -------
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > -------
> > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > > >
> > > > * Visit your group "
> > > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>"
on
> > the web.
> > > >
> > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > <mailto:-
[email protected]?
> > subject=Unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms
> > of
> > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------
---
> > -------
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's height (New member w/
2005-11-11 15:44:43
Are there actual written descriptions of Richard's brother, Edmund? I'm any tidbit of information in regards to him.
It seems there is really nothing noted about him other than he escaped to Ireland with his father, and then died on Wakefield Bridge. Does anyone know what he actually looked like? What his movements and actions in Ireland were? Are there any surviving portraits of him?
Any snippets of information would be greatly, greatly appreciated!
rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Richard
--- In , "antonia_barker"
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
It seems there is really nothing noted about him other than he escaped to Ireland with his father, and then died on Wakefield Bridge. Does anyone know what he actually looked like? What his movements and actions in Ireland were? Are there any surviving portraits of him?
Any snippets of information would be greatly, greatly appreciated!
rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Richard
--- In , "antonia_barker"
<antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
> Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases of
> scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In addition,
> the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis seem
> to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
>
> Regards,
> Antonia Barker
> London, UK
>
SPONSORED LINKS
United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Re: Richard's height (New member w/interest in evidence for Richard
2005-11-11 16:15:47
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
> impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
> brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Re this and your previous message about the rumour of Edward IV's
illegitimacy having to have been based on something other than the
lack of resemblance to York
You maybe missed my earlier posts on these subjects. Unfortunately,
novelists, and some past hsitorians such as Kendall, built up a
scenario of tall blond Plantegenet family with short dark cuckoo in
the nest from very slight evidence: ie contemporaries tell us only
that Edward was tall and handsome, and Richard was short, and
Richard's portraits mostly show very drak brown hair.
In fact, Edward's portrits too show brown hair (including the
manuscroipt pictures), and the earliest copy of Richard's portrait
(the one shown here on the website) doesn't have the hars as dark as
the later version. The hair on Edward's skeleton apparently looked
pretty dark brown until the samples were washed and came out sort of
beige. There are no contemporary descriptions of Clarence at all
other than Rous' comment that he was "well-visaged" - no reference at
all to his height. Since Kendall wrote, the thigh bones of the
skeleton at Tewkesbury which is probably Clarence's were measured and
calculated up to a probable height for their owner of a mere 5ft 5in.
As far as I know, there are no contemporary descriptions of Rutland,
and no portraits.
For the illegitimacy story, yes, indeed it was based on something
else. It seems to have burst into life in 1469, and Mancini and later
writers say it came from Cecily herself though (perhaps not
surprisingly) nothing was said about that at the time. It is possible
that rumours had been circulating in the background for years
because, as Michael Jones has discovered, the Duke of York was away
on campaign for a five-week period which sits bang on top of Edward's
likeliest time of conception (ie 38 weeks before his date of birth is
right in the middle of that period).
I said in an earlier post that I believe the story. Like Stephen, I
should have been more scholarly and said I tend to believe it. It's
not provable or dispovable (yet, at any rate), but I must say the
more I look into it the more convincing it becomes.
By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir Henry
Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly because
Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived while his
father York was away at the wars in France, and since no other Tudor
writer records this tradition I wondered if it might have been passed
down in the family (assuming Neville actually was the author).
Marie
PS. I wondered if anyone might pick up on my observation about
problems resulting from young girls having babies before their eggs
are mature. In a fifteenth-century context of course. Any guesses as
to whom I might be thinking about?
>
> Richard
>
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases
of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> > von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
>
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
> impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
> brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Re this and your previous message about the rumour of Edward IV's
illegitimacy having to have been based on something other than the
lack of resemblance to York
You maybe missed my earlier posts on these subjects. Unfortunately,
novelists, and some past hsitorians such as Kendall, built up a
scenario of tall blond Plantegenet family with short dark cuckoo in
the nest from very slight evidence: ie contemporaries tell us only
that Edward was tall and handsome, and Richard was short, and
Richard's portraits mostly show very drak brown hair.
In fact, Edward's portrits too show brown hair (including the
manuscroipt pictures), and the earliest copy of Richard's portrait
(the one shown here on the website) doesn't have the hars as dark as
the later version. The hair on Edward's skeleton apparently looked
pretty dark brown until the samples were washed and came out sort of
beige. There are no contemporary descriptions of Clarence at all
other than Rous' comment that he was "well-visaged" - no reference at
all to his height. Since Kendall wrote, the thigh bones of the
skeleton at Tewkesbury which is probably Clarence's were measured and
calculated up to a probable height for their owner of a mere 5ft 5in.
As far as I know, there are no contemporary descriptions of Rutland,
and no portraits.
For the illegitimacy story, yes, indeed it was based on something
else. It seems to have burst into life in 1469, and Mancini and later
writers say it came from Cecily herself though (perhaps not
surprisingly) nothing was said about that at the time. It is possible
that rumours had been circulating in the background for years
because, as Michael Jones has discovered, the Duke of York was away
on campaign for a five-week period which sits bang on top of Edward's
likeliest time of conception (ie 38 weeks before his date of birth is
right in the middle of that period).
I said in an earlier post that I believe the story. Like Stephen, I
should have been more scholarly and said I tend to believe it. It's
not provable or dispovable (yet, at any rate), but I must say the
more I look into it the more convincing it becomes.
By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir Henry
Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly because
Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived while his
father York was away at the wars in France, and since no other Tudor
writer records this tradition I wondered if it might have been passed
down in the family (assuming Neville actually was the author).
Marie
PS. I wondered if anyone might pick up on my observation about
problems resulting from young girls having babies before their eggs
are mature. In a fifteenth-century context of course. Any guesses as
to whom I might be thinking about?
>
> Richard
>
> --- In , "antonia_barker"
> <antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases
of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> > von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's height (New member w/
2005-11-11 16:28:19
You wouldn't mean the younger Margaret Beaufort by any chance?
Incidentally, when you mention the Nevilles of Bergavenny, I think of Jane who married Lord Montagu and Margaret who supposedly married Henry Pole the Younger and then the 2nd Earl of Rutland.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's height (New member w/interest in evidence for Richard's deformity)
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
> impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
> brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Re this and your previous message about the rumour of Edward IV's
illegitimacy having to have been based on something other than the
lack of resemblance to York
You maybe missed my earlier posts on these subjects. Unfortunately,
novelists, and some past historians such as Kendall, built up a
scenario of tall blond Plantegenet family with short dark cuckoo in
the nest from very slight evidence: i.e. contemporaries tell us only
that Edward was tall and handsome, and Richard was short, and
Richard's portraits mostly show very dark brown hair.
In fact, Edward's portraits too show brown hair (including the
manuscript pictures), and the earliest copy of Richard's portrait
(the one shown here on the website) doesn't have the hairs as dark as
the later version. The hair on Edward's skeleton apparently looked
pretty dark brown until the samples were washed and came out sort of
beige. There are no contemporary descriptions of Clarence at all
other than Rous' comment that he was "well-visaged" - no reference at
all to his height. Since Kendall wrote, the thigh bones of the
skeleton at Tewkesbury which is probably Clarence's were measured and
calculated up to a probable height for their owner of a mere 5ft 5in.
As far as I know, there are no contemporary descriptions of Rutland,
and no portraits.
For the illegitimacy story, yes, indeed it was based on something
else. It seems to have burst into life in 1469, and Mancini and later
writers say it came from Cecily herself though (perhaps not
surprisingly) nothing was said about that at the time. It is possible
that rumours had been circulating in the background for years
because, as Michael Jones has discovered, the Duke of York was away
on campaign for a five-week period which sits bang on top of Edward's
likeliest time of conception (i.e. 38 weeks before his date of birth is
right in the middle of that period).
I said in an earlier post that I believe the story. Like Stephen, I
should have been more scholarly and said I tend to believe it. It's
not provable or disprovable (yet, at any rate), but I must say the
more I look into it the more convincing it becomes.
By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir Henry
Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly because
Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived while his
father York was away at the wars in France, and since no other Tudor
writer records this tradition I wondered if it might have been passed
down in the family (assuming Neville actually was the author).
Marie
PS. I wondered if anyone might pick up on my observation about
problems resulting from young girls having babies before their eggs
are mature. In a fifteenth-century context of course. Any guesses as
to whom I might be thinking about?
>
> Richard
>
> --- In , "Antonia_barker"
> <Antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases
of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> > von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
>
SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incidentally, when you mention the Nevilles of Bergavenny, I think of Jane who married Lord Montagu and Margaret who supposedly married Henry Pole the Younger and then the 2nd Earl of Rutland.
----- Original Message -----
From: mariewalsh2003
To:
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 4:13 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's height (New member w/interest in evidence for Richard's deformity)
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I cannot recall any description of Richard III being tall - my
> impression is that he was slight, rather dwarfed by his tall
> brothers Edward, Edmund and George.
Re this and your previous message about the rumour of Edward IV's
illegitimacy having to have been based on something other than the
lack of resemblance to York
You maybe missed my earlier posts on these subjects. Unfortunately,
novelists, and some past historians such as Kendall, built up a
scenario of tall blond Plantegenet family with short dark cuckoo in
the nest from very slight evidence: i.e. contemporaries tell us only
that Edward was tall and handsome, and Richard was short, and
Richard's portraits mostly show very dark brown hair.
In fact, Edward's portraits too show brown hair (including the
manuscript pictures), and the earliest copy of Richard's portrait
(the one shown here on the website) doesn't have the hairs as dark as
the later version. The hair on Edward's skeleton apparently looked
pretty dark brown until the samples were washed and came out sort of
beige. There are no contemporary descriptions of Clarence at all
other than Rous' comment that he was "well-visaged" - no reference at
all to his height. Since Kendall wrote, the thigh bones of the
skeleton at Tewkesbury which is probably Clarence's were measured and
calculated up to a probable height for their owner of a mere 5ft 5in.
As far as I know, there are no contemporary descriptions of Rutland,
and no portraits.
For the illegitimacy story, yes, indeed it was based on something
else. It seems to have burst into life in 1469, and Mancini and later
writers say it came from Cecily herself though (perhaps not
surprisingly) nothing was said about that at the time. It is possible
that rumours had been circulating in the background for years
because, as Michael Jones has discovered, the Duke of York was away
on campaign for a five-week period which sits bang on top of Edward's
likeliest time of conception (i.e. 38 weeks before his date of birth is
right in the middle of that period).
I said in an earlier post that I believe the story. Like Stephen, I
should have been more scholarly and said I tend to believe it. It's
not provable or disprovable (yet, at any rate), but I must say the
more I look into it the more convincing it becomes.
By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir Henry
Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly because
Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived while his
father York was away at the wars in France, and since no other Tudor
writer records this tradition I wondered if it might have been passed
down in the family (assuming Neville actually was the author).
Marie
PS. I wondered if anyone might pick up on my observation about
problems resulting from young girls having babies before their eggs
are mature. In a fifteenth-century context of course. Any guesses as
to whom I might be thinking about?
>
> Richard
>
> --- In , "Antonia_barker"
> <Antonia_barker@h...> wrote:
>
> > Also, is there any evidence that Richard's forebears had spinal
> > deformities? There appears to be a genetic factor in many cases
of
> > scoliosis, especially the Adolescent Idiopathic form. In
addition,
> > the vast majority of cases of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis
seem
> > to occur in tall, thin individuals, which fits in with Nicholas
> > von Poppelau's description of Richard's physical appearance.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Antonia Barker
> > London, UK
> >
>
SPONSORED LINKS United kingdom calling card United kingdom flower delivery Call united kingdom
United kingdom florist United kingdom phone card United kingdom hotel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-11 23:59:04
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> I mentioned Robert Cecil because his "deformity" was said by the
> Plotters to be the sign of an immoral character.
>
> - In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Wonder if anyone inherited all the various royal problems:
> scoliosis,
> > prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding,
the
> > individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then,
if
> he
> > or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may
also
> have
> > contracted syphilis.
Although the last I heard, it is believed that the haemophilia was a
spnoteaneous mutation on Queen Victoria's part.
Talking of inherited characteristics, a couple of years ago somewhat
I walked into my cousin's house to be introduced to an elderly man
whom I recognised, by both face and name. Then, to my initial
confusion, I remembered that the man I had heard of by that name was
long dead, and I knew of his appearance only from a photograph taken
in the 1920s. The man I was looking at was in fact his grandson.
He is, in fact, a third cousin of mine (both sides). The next
odd "recognition factor" was when I noticed he was sitting with the
top joint of his forefinger turned down on its own. Now that is a
trick I can do with my fingers (though my middle finger is best at
it). So can my twin brother. Yet I've never encountered any other
relative on that side of the family - including my mother - with that
particular idiosyncracy.
So, yes, genes are passed down, and distant relatives can have very
identifiable similarities. But no one can predict exactly what will
be inherited from whom.
Marie
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> I mentioned Robert Cecil because his "deformity" was said by the
> Plotters to be the sign of an immoral character.
>
> - In , William Barber
> <bbarber@e...> wrote:
> >
> > Wonder if anyone inherited all the various royal problems:
> scoliosis,
> > prophyria, and haemophila. Given the problems with inbreeding,
the
> > individual might also be diagnosed with ADHD and dyslexia. Then,
if
> he
> > or she were alive in the late fifteenth century, he or she may
also
> have
> > contracted syphilis.
Although the last I heard, it is believed that the haemophilia was a
spnoteaneous mutation on Queen Victoria's part.
Talking of inherited characteristics, a couple of years ago somewhat
I walked into my cousin's house to be introduced to an elderly man
whom I recognised, by both face and name. Then, to my initial
confusion, I remembered that the man I had heard of by that name was
long dead, and I knew of his appearance only from a photograph taken
in the 1920s. The man I was looking at was in fact his grandson.
He is, in fact, a third cousin of mine (both sides). The next
odd "recognition factor" was when I noticed he was sitting with the
top joint of his forefinger turned down on its own. Now that is a
trick I can do with my fingers (though my middle finger is best at
it). So can my twin brother. Yet I've never encountered any other
relative on that side of the family - including my mother - with that
particular idiosyncracy.
So, yes, genes are passed down, and distant relatives can have very
identifiable similarities. But no one can predict exactly what will
be inherited from whom.
Marie
Re: Richard's height (New member w/interest in evidence for Richard
2005-11-12 00:25:38
--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> You wouldn't mean the younger Margaret Beaufort by any chance?
Mmmmm.... Wicked, aren't I?
<smlark@t...> wrote:
>
> You wouldn't mean the younger Margaret Beaufort by any chance?
Mmmmm.... Wicked, aren't I?
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-12 01:10:52
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
he was sitting with the
> top joint of his forefinger turned down on its own. Now that is a
> trick I can do with my fingers (though my middle finger is best at
> it). So can my twin brother. Yet I've never encountered any other
> relative on that side of the family - including my mother - with that
> particular idiosyncracy.
> So, yes, genes are passed down, and distant relatives can have very
> identifiable similarities. But no one can predict exactly what will
> be inherited from whom.
Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and the
inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally unrelated
field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short due
to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
defect has come down through the generations to the present day, when
reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of the
Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third son,
Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the end of
their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused by
the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
succeeded him to the earldom.
By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had enough
time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough before
(1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was the
current earl?)
Katy
<marie@r...> wrote:
he was sitting with the
> top joint of his forefinger turned down on its own. Now that is a
> trick I can do with my fingers (though my middle finger is best at
> it). So can my twin brother. Yet I've never encountered any other
> relative on that side of the family - including my mother - with that
> particular idiosyncracy.
> So, yes, genes are passed down, and distant relatives can have very
> identifiable similarities. But no one can predict exactly what will
> be inherited from whom.
Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and the
inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally unrelated
field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short due
to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
defect has come down through the generations to the present day, when
reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of the
Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third son,
Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the end of
their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused by
the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
succeeded him to the earldom.
By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had enough
time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough before
(1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was the
current earl?)
Katy
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-13 11:01:56
> Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and
the
> inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
unrelated
> field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
due
> to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
when
> reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
>
> John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
the
> Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
son,
> Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
end of
> their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
by
> the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> succeeded him to the earldom.
>
> By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
enough
> time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
before
> (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
the
> current earl?)
>
> Katy
>
Hi Katy,
She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
died in the Minories.
Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
Marie
the
> inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
unrelated
> field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
due
> to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
when
> reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
>
> John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
the
> Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
son,
> Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
end of
> their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
by
> the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> succeeded him to the earldom.
>
> By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
enough
> time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
before
> (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
the
> current earl?)
>
> Katy
>
Hi Katy,
She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
died in the Minories.
Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
Marie
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-13 13:39:49
Talbot's charge reminds me so much of the WWI cavalry charges against
machine gun nests.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and
> the
> > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> unrelated
> > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
> due
> > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> when
> > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> >
> > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
> the
> > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
> son,
> > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> end of
> > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
> by
> > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > succeeded him to the earldom.
> >
> > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> enough
> > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> before
> > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> the
> > current earl?)
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
> anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
> wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
> as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
> for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
> died in the Minories.
> Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
> on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
> Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
> Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
machine gun nests.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and
> the
> > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> unrelated
> > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
> due
> > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> when
> > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> >
> > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
> the
> > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
> son,
> > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> end of
> > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
> by
> > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > succeeded him to the earldom.
> >
> > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> enough
> > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> before
> > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> the
> > current earl?)
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
> anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
> wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
> as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
> for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
> died in the Minories.
> Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
> on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
> Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
> Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Re: New member with interest in evi
2005-11-13 13:41:43
I wonder how common it is to have teeth that are either missing or
malformed in some way. I know of an individual or two whose wisdom teeth
never showed up.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and
> the
> > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> unrelated
> > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
> due
> > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> when
> > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> >
> > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
> the
> > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
> son,
> > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> end of
> > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
> by
> > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > succeeded him to the earldom.
> >
> > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> enough
> > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> before
> > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> the
> > current earl?)
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
> anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
> wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
> as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
> for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
> died in the Minories.
> Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
> on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
> Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
> Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
malformed in some way. I know of an individual or two whose wisdom teeth
never showed up.
mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure, and
> the
> > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> unrelated
> > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I learned
> > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very short
> due
> > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone. This
> > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> when
> > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of genetic
> > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> >
> > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field of
> > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the campaigns of
> the
> > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a third
> son,
> > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> end of
> > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was confused
> by
> > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > succeeded him to the earldom.
> >
> > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was her
> > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl of
> > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> enough
> > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> before
> > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> the
> > current earl?)
> >
> > Katy
> >
>
> Hi Katy,
>
> She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old earl
> of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is identifiable
> anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his second
> wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know Edward
> as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed fighting
> for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose widow
> died in the Minories.
> Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also found
> on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that, since
> Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading that
> Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
>
> Marie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> United kingdom calling card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> United kingdom flower delivery
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> Call united kingdom
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=LtswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
>
> United kingdom florist
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> United kingdom phone card
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> United kingdom hotel
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on the web.
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
Re: New member with interest in evidence for Richard's "deformity"
2005-11-14 09:03:37
--- In , William Barber
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how common it is to have teeth that are either missing or
> malformed in some way. I know of an individual or two whose wisdom
teeth
> never showed up.
It's not uncommon with wisdom teeth. We're evolving out of them, I
think. There's not really room for them in the mouth of the modern
human. I had all four but they didn't all erupt normally. Two did.
Another came halfway up and stopped, and the fourth had got pushed
over and was lying on its side in my jawbone. With ordinary molars
it's not nearly so common, I believe. Theya Molleson did give
statistics with her report, but they've been argued over. It may
apparently have been commoner at one time than it is now. Also, of
course, there's the question of whether the teeth really were missing
congenitally or had been knocked out. The skulls were pretty knocked
about by the time they were rescued from the tip, and one was very
incomplete. She was clear that this was a genetic abnormality rather
than something which had got lost later, but you'd have to wonder
given the circumstances of their retrieval and the fact that she was
not able to look at the bones first hand.
Marie
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure,
and
> > the
> > > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> > unrelated
> > > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I
learned
> > > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very
short
> > due
> > > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone.
This
> > > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> > when
> > > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of
genetic
> > > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> > >
> > > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field
of
> > > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the
campaigns of
> > the
> > > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a
third
> > son,
> > > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> > end of
> > > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was
confused
> > by
> > > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > > succeeded him to the earldom.
> > >
> > > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was
her
> > > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl
of
> > > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> > enough
> > > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> > before
> > > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> > the
> > > current earl?)
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> > Hi Katy,
> >
> > She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old
earl
> > of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> > the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> > Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is
identifiable
> > anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his
second
> > wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> > Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> > when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know
Edward
> > as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed
fighting
> > for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> > Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose
widow
> > died in the Minories.
> > Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> > idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> > Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> > Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also
found
> > on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that,
since
> > Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> > almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading
that
> > Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> > Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> > characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> > entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > Call united kingdom
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > United kingdom phone card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > United kingdom hotel
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
<bbarber@e...> wrote:
>
> I wonder how common it is to have teeth that are either missing or
> malformed in some way. I know of an individual or two whose wisdom
teeth
> never showed up.
It's not uncommon with wisdom teeth. We're evolving out of them, I
think. There's not really room for them in the mouth of the modern
human. I had all four but they didn't all erupt normally. Two did.
Another came halfway up and stopped, and the fourth had got pushed
over and was lying on its side in my jawbone. With ordinary molars
it's not nearly so common, I believe. Theya Molleson did give
statistics with her report, but they've been argued over. It may
apparently have been commoner at one time than it is now. Also, of
course, there's the question of whether the teeth really were missing
congenitally or had been knocked out. The skulls were pretty knocked
about by the time they were rescued from the tip, and one was very
incomplete. She was clear that this was a genetic abnormality rather
than something which had got lost later, but you'd have to wonder
given the circumstances of their retrieval and the fact that she was
not able to look at the bones first hand.
Marie
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > > Marie serendipitously mentions peculiarities of hand structure,
and
> > the
> > > inheritability thereof, which reminds me that in a totally
> > unrelated
> > > field (the genetics of various hereditary human diseases) I
learned
> > > that John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, had abnormal hands.
> > > Examination of his skeleton showed that his fingers were very
short
> > due
> > > to partial to complete absence of the first phalangeal bone.
This
> > > defect has come down through the generations to the present day,
> > when
> > > reseachers became interested in producing family trees of
genetic
> > > defects, and traced it back to the 14th century earl.
> > >
> > > John Talbot (1384 or 90 to 1453) figures in our favorite field
of
> > > interest. He was a major miltary force in many of the
campaigns of
> > the
> > > Hundred Years War and The Talbot is still a bogeyman in French
> > > tradition. He and his same-name son, Viscount Lisle, and a
third
> > son,
> > > Thomas, died in battle in Bordeaux, and Shakespeare laments the
> > end of
> > > their line in Henry VI, Part 1. Actually, Shakespare was
confused
> > by
> > > the Same-Name Syndrome...Shrewsbury had yet another on John, who
> > > succeeded him to the earldom.
> > >
> > > By the way, Eleanor Butler is involved in all this. Butler was
her
> > > married ame...she was Eleanor Talbot, daughter of "the old Earl
of
> > > Shrewsbury." (Was that the fearsome first earl, Marie, or had
> > enough
> > > time passed that his son John the 2nd earl had died long enough
> > before
> > > (1460) that he was the old earl and his son (John of course) was
> > the
> > > current earl?)
> > >
> > > Katy
> > >
> >
> > Hi Katy,
> >
> > She was, according to Titulus Regius, the "daughter of the old
earl
> > of Shrewsbury". Although we were on the 4th earl by 1483, it seems
> > the "Old Earl of Shrewsbury" pretty definitively refers to the 1st
> > Earl. As she was named as "Dame Eleanor Butler", she is
identifiable
> > anyway. She was a daughter of the Terror of the French by his
second
> > wife, Margaret Beauchamp, and was born about 1437. Interestingly,
> > Shrewsbury and his family were over in France with York and Cecily
> > when Edward was born, so Eleanor would first have got to know
Edward
> > as a baby. Her husband, Sir Thomas Butler, had been killed
fighting
> > for the Lancastrians. Her full siblings included Viscount Lisle,
> > Elizabeth Talbot duchess of Norfolk, and Humphrey Talbot whose
widow
> > died in the Minories.
> > Which brings me serendipitously to another of Shrewsbury's
> > idiosyncracies I remember reading about, and how it affects the
> > Princes question. You know those congenitally missing teeth which
> > Anne Mowbray had, and which Theya Molleson claims she has also
found
> > on the X rays of the bones in the urn? Her argument went that,
since
> > Anne Mowbray was related to the Princes, the bones in the urn are
> > almost certainly those of the Princes. However, I recall reading
that
> > Shrewsbury also had this abnormality, and as Anne Mowbray was
> > Shrewsbury's grand-daughter she had almost certainly inherited the
> > characteristic from him. Which leaves the Princes out of the loop
> > entirely as they had no Talbot ancestry.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > United kingdom calling card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+calling+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=U
nited+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom
+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=17
9&.sig=4GGc4xia-6uj4vkwxeda1w>
> > United kingdom flower delivery
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w
2=United+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+king
dom+florist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s
=179&.sig=8cAgnmTQK8hWQSrT09Gf-w>
> > Call united kingdom
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=Call+united+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+ki
ngdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+florist
&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=L
tswW8ZiUV1kjXQVm82g5Q>
> >
> > United kingdom florist
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+florist&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United
+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+flor
ist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.si
g=fGW6B8GVBZ8wHiilib0-FQ>
> > United kingdom phone card
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+phone+card&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=Uni
ted+kingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+f
lorist&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&
.sig=1nHG04-Q_xgyixOcRbHjrA>
> > United kingdom hotel
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?
t=ms&k=United+kingdom+hotel&w1=United+kingdom+calling+card&w2=United+k
ingdom+flower+delivery&w3=Call+united+kingdom&w4=United+kingdom+floris
t&w5=United+kingdom+phone+card&w6=United+kingdom+hotel&c=6&s=179&.sig=
4O6cijxeGAbyWJhxvVxdvw>
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> > * Visit your group "
> > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/>" on
the web.
> >
> > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > [email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]?
subject=Unsubscribe>
> >
> > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Neville as Shakespeare (was Richard's height)
2005-11-14 14:27:32
I've read newspaper reports of this book, but not yet seen the book
itself. What it does not seem to consider is whether Neville might
simply have been a friend of Shakespeare who provided him with
information on people and places which Shakespeare then turned into
plays.
In that Holinshed is normally regarded as Shakespeare's primary
historical source, you are saying that this story does not appear
there ?
Richard
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
> coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir
> Henry Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly
> because Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived
> while his father York was away at the wars in France, and since no
> other Tudor writer records this tradition I wondered if it might
> have been passed down in the family (assuming Neville actually was
> the author).
itself. What it does not seem to consider is whether Neville might
simply have been a friend of Shakespeare who provided him with
information on people and places which Shakespeare then turned into
plays.
In that Holinshed is normally regarded as Shakespeare's primary
historical source, you are saying that this story does not appear
there ?
Richard
--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@r...> wrote:
> By the by, I don't know if anyone else has seen that there is a book
> coming out arguing that Shakespeare's plays were written by Sir
> Henry Neville of the Bergavenny line. I mention it here mainly
> because Shakespeare has Richard III state that Edward was conceived
> while his father York was away at the wars in France, and since no
> other Tudor writer records this tradition I wondered if it might
> have been passed down in the family (assuming Neville actually was
> the author).
Re: Neville as Shakespeare (was Richard's height)
2005-11-14 16:06:07
--- In , "rgcorris"
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I've read newspaper reports of this book, but not yet seen the book
> itself. What it does not seem to consider is whether Neville might
> simply have been a friend of Shakespeare who provided him with
> information on people and places which Shakespeare then turned into
> plays.
I think there was a bit in the blurb I read which went beyond that -
something to do with his livery colours, but I can't exactly recall.
I've never got into this who-wrote-Shakespeare stuff, or even
Shakespeare's own life, but I might take an interest in this one when
it comes out, even if just for a bit of fun. I must say, however,
that the argument as presented in the BBC History mag was not
particularly compelling.
By the by, does anyone know what the source is for WS being born on
St George's Day? Is there a record of actual birth or is it just his
baptismal record? It's just that after the Reformation it became the
practice to encourage people to bring their babies for baptism on
major festival days, when they could serve as a good example to
others in the congregation. St George's Day became a very popular day
for christenings.
>
> In that Holinshed is normally regarded as Shakespeare's primary
> historical source, you are saying that this story does not appear
> there ?
Now, I can't pretend to be be able to answer that directly - I don't
have a copy of Holinshed, and the bit on the US Branch website only
kicks in with Richard's taking the throne. Unless MKJ has missed a
trick however, it would appear not, as he claims "an oral tradition
still current at the time of Shakespeare. The playwright seems to
have drawn on it in an aside by Richard to his chief accomplice as he
conspires to usurp the throne, usually seen as a slur on his mother
and further proof of his villainy and lack of scruple. In fact it may
contain the remnant of something very different:
'... when that my mother went with child
of that insatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father, then had wars in France
And by true computation of the time
Found that the issue was not his begot.'"
Can anyone provide a Holinshed look-up?
Marie
<RSG_Corris@h...> wrote:
>
> I've read newspaper reports of this book, but not yet seen the book
> itself. What it does not seem to consider is whether Neville might
> simply have been a friend of Shakespeare who provided him with
> information on people and places which Shakespeare then turned into
> plays.
I think there was a bit in the blurb I read which went beyond that -
something to do with his livery colours, but I can't exactly recall.
I've never got into this who-wrote-Shakespeare stuff, or even
Shakespeare's own life, but I might take an interest in this one when
it comes out, even if just for a bit of fun. I must say, however,
that the argument as presented in the BBC History mag was not
particularly compelling.
By the by, does anyone know what the source is for WS being born on
St George's Day? Is there a record of actual birth or is it just his
baptismal record? It's just that after the Reformation it became the
practice to encourage people to bring their babies for baptism on
major festival days, when they could serve as a good example to
others in the congregation. St George's Day became a very popular day
for christenings.
>
> In that Holinshed is normally regarded as Shakespeare's primary
> historical source, you are saying that this story does not appear
> there ?
Now, I can't pretend to be be able to answer that directly - I don't
have a copy of Holinshed, and the bit on the US Branch website only
kicks in with Richard's taking the throne. Unless MKJ has missed a
trick however, it would appear not, as he claims "an oral tradition
still current at the time of Shakespeare. The playwright seems to
have drawn on it in an aside by Richard to his chief accomplice as he
conspires to usurp the throne, usually seen as a slur on his mother
and further proof of his villainy and lack of scruple. In fact it may
contain the remnant of something very different:
'... when that my mother went with child
of that insatiate Edward, noble York
My princely father, then had wars in France
And by true computation of the time
Found that the issue was not his begot.'"
Can anyone provide a Holinshed look-up?
Marie
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.