There goes the coffee again.

He wasn't a hunchback, Catigern - at least not according to the "evidence" etc

According to the "evidence" etc he was just a slightly more exaggerated form of this lad:





I know this must be true. I read it in the latest edition of the Dick Suckers' periodical.

I am actually dead, as it happens. I am the ghost of the Earl of Oxford , come back to defend my master's name against the monstrous slanders of the foul Ricardians...

OK nordmann, I admit it: Richard III had the physique of superman, the martial qualities of Alexander and the morals of Florence Nightingale...

Nearly right - he had the morals of Alexander, the martial qualities of Clark Kent and the physique of Florence Nightingale.

You must pay more attention in class!

Shouldn't that be...

'...the physique of Florence Nightingale .'?

The Lady with the Lumps? You could be right ...

You two should go on the stage. You're as good as Morecombe and Wise or the Two Ronnies....

Coffee all over ferval's computer - tea all over mine...

Temperance wrote:

You two should go on the stage. You're as good as Morecombe and Wise or the Two Ronnies....

Indeed, especially if they did it in Polari....

"I'm Nords and this is my friend Catty, nice to see you, nice to vada your eke, again!".

Now you two have made me spill coffee all over the keyboard as well. Ah, but it was worth it for the laugh, thankyou!

Love it, Lady with the Lumps!

Richard III with " ...the physique of Florence Nightingale'?

You mean like the Lady with the Limp, surely?

Oh, MM, that's brilliant! I can just hear Catty saying, "Oh, *hello*!" as in:

Nordmann: I'm Nords and this is my friend, Catty.

Catigern: Oh *hello*, Mr Horne! What you doing, trolling around Oxford?

Horne: "So where have you been Catty, we haven't seen you for a while".

Catty: "Oooo Mr Horne, I've been reposin', I've been fair fagged out I have!"

Horne: "So you've been resting in the arms of Morpheus then?"

Nords: "Well I dunno what his name was but he was wearing a sailor's hat!"

Did all you lot used to watch 'Crackerjack' or something similar?

Thank you, Ferval and MM for the welcome back ! Priscilla-Poppet, please bear with me, there's a love...

But, now, I think we ought to try and get this discussion back on track...

Since science has now proven Shakespeare's depiction of Richard III to have been substantially correct*, perhaps we should move on from 'What happened to the princes?' to 'Precisely how did Dickon Nephewsbane murder the princes?'.

The evidence from Scotland suggests that his preferred method of killing the helpless was by burning them alive, but his murder of Good King Henry VI (the last true Plantagenet monarch) indicates that Richard appreciated the value of secrecy. So, was it pillows over the faces while they slept, throats slit with a dagger, a garotte, or did he bludgeon their brains out...?


*if a tad generous: the bard gave him one good arm, but the archaeologists are all saying that the skeleton is of someone feeble in *both* arms...

The pillow theory rests on the "divide and conquer" principle being employed since if they were together one would conceivably have heard the other's struggles etc etc. Getting the toffs to break old habits and not sleep with their close relatives would have been the solution there.

The only problem is that "D and C" was, as we were taught in Ireland, essentially a Tudor policy. The thlot pickens ...

What about the red hot poker up the bum? Wasn't that a Plantagenet tradition?

Just to remind you all.

More 4 tonight at 9.00pm:

Channel 4 Commissioning Editor John Hay has ordered a special follow-up programme for More4, to build on the success of the world exclusive Richard III: The King in the Car Park. The first programme told the story of how Richard III's body came to be found by an alliance of amateur enthusiasts intent upon rehabilitating Richard's reputation and leading archaeologists from the University of Leicester. Richard III: The Unseen Story – made by the same team from Darlow Smithson Productions who won exclusive access to film the investigation – zeros in on the five months of archaeological and scientific detective work that led to this extraordinary result. The programme uses unseen footage and new interviews with the lead scientists to tell the story of the investigation in unprecedented detail, revealing multiple new dimensions to the hunt for England's long-lost king.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/richard-iii-the-king-in-the-car-park/4od#3488196been

Can't make above address post as a video link, don't know why.

So the scoliosis *was* severe in Richard's case; the spine was badly curved and he *would* have been in a great deal of pain most of the time.

Don't know if this is of any interest.

http://www.scoliosisjournal.com/content/4/1/6

Medicine was not clearly distinguished from religion and mysticism in the ancient world. Ancient works of philosophy, religion, myths, and fairy tales dating back as far as 3500 BC invoke images of people with spinal deformity. In the third millennium BC, wall paintings and statues from Knossos, in Crete island, depicted female figures wearing tight bodices that expose their breasts (Figure 1). Minoan Crete is considered as the origin of the corset. The Boxing Boys fresco (1600 BC) in Akrotiri in the Greek island of Santorini is the first monumental image of a compound spinal disorder that is diagnostically recognizable by current medical standards [1]. The painting reflects a rigid abnormality, probably a spinal deformity (Figure 2). Ancient descriptions and statues typically portray Alexander the Great with an underlying scoliotic condition with a cervical neck deformity [2], typically with a gaze looking upward and outward with the added possibility of ocular muscle deficits and facial asymmetry (Figure 3).

So Alexander the Great also suffered from some kind of "scoliotic condition"?

I'm still intrigued by the osteology and the atypical feminine characteristics, the lack of evidence for strong muscular attachment and the gracile bones doesn't really sit well with the mighty warrior picture. The skull isn't obviously male either, I can't see any clear supraorbital ridges and the forehead is is quite vertical. The mastoid processes look comparatively small and there doesn't appear to be a distinct nuchal crest. I wonder how the reconstruction would have looked had the presumption been that the skeleton was female and those data used? It takes more than a Y chromosome to allocate biological sex and it's no help with ascribed gender.
I'm not suggesting that the old boy was really an old girl but there's an element of androgeny here that's interesting.

Oh, sorry, ferval - have deleted my suggestions for the organisation of the Res Historica Richard III Magical Mystery Tours. Thought perhaps we'd had quite enough silliness on this thread for this week...

But I must stop faffing about here - I'm late *again*...

OK, I've removed the cryptic comments but it's such a nice idea.

The new doc isn't up on youtube yet, I'll be keeping a lookout as I'm keen to see it. There was the RIII story told in Lego though!

Was there anything last night on the other skeleton found?

No, nothing. In fact there was little that was new but it did explain a little about the siting of the trenches and the layout of the building.

I agree with you Ferval that there has been little said about the gracile features of the bones which does not tie in at all with the reports of fighting prowess. I would also like to see another facial reconstruction done by someone who did not know where the skull originated to see if the result was similar.

Yes, as said previously, warriors are usually found with the bones of one arm noticeably larger than the other from years and hours of practice with weapons. Yet this skeleton's bones were not only gracile but the arm bones were exactly the same size. Imo, this also debunks the Ricardian scenario of Richard being a great warrior and oddly ( ) one of the points that has been suspiciously overlooked by the fan club.

I'd also like to see another facial re-construction done by and independent and outside source.

This bone business is puzzling. We need an expert to clarify things.

Exercise obviously builds muscle, but does it *always* build bone? Are other factors - such as lack of calcium and/or magnesium in the diet - involved? Even if calcium/magnesium intake is sufficient, don't certain medical conditions sometimes prevent the absorption of the vital minerals needed for bone development?

And don't some elite athletes actually *lose* bone density because of over-training?

I don't want this to become a sneery, scoring points exercise; I just want to find out the facts. Is there a doctor in the house?

Even his enemies concede Richard was a pretty good warrior, ID - why would hostile commentators lie about this? Had he been a pathetic wimp, would this not have been noted?

Temperance wrote:

So the scoliosis *was* severe in Richard's case; the spine was badly curved and he *would* have been in a great deal of pain most of the time.

I hate to say 'I told you so', but...

I TOLD YOU SO!

HUMPty-dumpty had a big HUMP!
A twisted spine with a whopping great lump!
All of his horses and all of his men,
Couldn't stop HUMPty from getting his pansified Yorkist arse kicked all over Bosworth Field!


Temp, why do you keep saying that the hunchback's enemies regarded him as a great soldier? This is just more Ricardian wishful thinking, if you ask me . Re the likes of Polydore Vergil's 'died fighting manfully' comment etc, it was in Henry's interests to play up Richard's prowess once he was dead, in order to magnify the Tudor achievement of beating him. What we *don't* have is genuine evidence of the Kiddiekiller being feared by his enemies while he was alive, such as a private comment along the lines of 'We'd better be careful - we're up against Richard of Gloucester .'

Incidentally, if you decide to try and disentangle Richard and Albany, be warned that the Cely Letter cited by both Grant and Ross ('Edward IV' ) doesn't actually say what they both claim. I can't remember just what the error is, but the letter is in the Early English Texts edition of the Cely Letters .

nordmann wrote:

What about the red hot poker up the bum? Wasn't that a Plantagenet tradition?

Apparently not.

Well not according to Ken Follett that is. If we're to believe World Without End then Edward II didn't die at Berkeley Castle at all but instead escaped and lived as a pretend monk along with other pretend monks until finally being beheaded by his son Edward III (personally).

I read World Without End and remember nothing from it at all. Absolutely nothing - not even when I'm reminded, Vizzer. What an incredibly great achievement by Follett - a book that one can read time and time again and always for the first time.

Catigern, I'm amazed anyone thought they had found any valid political commentary in the Cely Papers at all. For that family the only thing that mattered was how they could flog their wool - any big political events are invariably noted as irritating interruptions to the business. I assume the letter Ross & Co cite is the rather terse;

"Ther ys grett romber in the reme, the scottes has done grett [sic] yn Ynglond, schamberlayne, ys dessesset in trobell the chaunseler ys dysprowett and nott content the boshop of Ely ys ded yff the kyng God saffe his lyfe wher desset, the Dewk of Glosetter wher in any parell, geffe my lorde prynsse wher God defend wher trobellett, yf my lord of Northehombyrlond wher ded or grettly trobellyt, yf my lorde Haward wher slayne

De Munsewr Sent Jonys
Summa. "

and at that point the rest of the page is torn off. I imagine by Cely himself when he realised he was beginning to babble. He then composed himself and wrote another page, this time sticking to what he did best - listing off all those who owed him money and exactly how much.

The line "yff the kyng God saffe his lyfe wher desset, the Dewk of Glosetter wher in any parell ..." is taken by the Ricardians to indicate acknowledgment on Cely's part that a succession to Richard on the death or incapacity of Edward V would be "natural". But one only has to read the continuation to see just how presumptuous this is as an interpretation. Cely is expressing fear that if all those mentioned - including Gloucester - should die or be "in trouble" then ...

But we never get to read what would happen after "then ...". My own guess is that Cely concluded with "then we must start collecting our wool revenue in Scottish coinage, boys!".

Cely didn't give a flying fart about the king, whoever wanted to be it at the time. He and the rest of the correspondents in the Cely letters were in another world entirely - probably one more real in fact.

Catigern wrote:

Temp, why do you keep saying that the hunchback's enemies regarded him as a great soldier? This is just more Ricardian wishful thinking, if you ask me . Re the likes of Polydore Vergil's 'died fighting manfully' comment etc, it was in Henry's interests to play up Richard's prowess once he was dead, in order to magnify the Tudor achievement of beating him. What we *don't* have is genuine evidence of the Kiddiekiller being feared by his enemies while he was alive, such as a private comment along the lines of 'We'd better be careful - we're up against Richard of Gloucester .'

Incidentally, if you decide to try and disentangle Richard and Albany, be warned that the Cely Letter cited by both Grant and Ross ('Edward IV' ) doesn't actually say what they both claim. I can't remember just what the error is, but the letter is in the Early English Texts edition of the Cely Letters .

Well, Mancini - not usually cited as a friend of Richard - comments on Richard's martial skills in his "Usurpation" - I'll find the exact quotation in a minute.

But a source no one quotes actually comes from the reign of Richard's great-nephew - The Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII vol. I, ii, p.1056 and p. 1260. Here Lord Dacre, Warden of the West March, writes plaintively to Wolsey that he shouldn't be expected to equal the accomplishment of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Wolsey replied severely that Dacre is expected to provide the same kind of effectual rule.

Thanks to you (and nordmann) for your advice concerning the Cely letters. I had never heard of them before yesterday and I do not know the letter you mention that you suggest links to Richard and the Duke of Albany and to what Richard did - or chose not to do - in Edinburgh during the campaign of 1482. I shall make every effort to find out more.

The point that I was so clumsily trying to make was that a good general knows when it is wise to show mercy. Edinburgh was undefended; most of the Scottish army was at Haddington (where Richard immediately headed). It would have been easy for Richard to have allowed his men to plunder and burn and rape in the Scottish capital; but his discipline over his men was such that this did not happen. If England was anxious to keep the French out of Scotland and to influence Scottish policy by diplomacy and a marriage treaty, surely this was a wise restraint?

But I am no expert, as you know, and I do hope I am not talking utter crap.

Back in a sec when I've found the Mancini bit I want; I should have located it before I started this post. I need some tea, too.

EDIT: From Dominic Mancini (not known as an admirer of Richard) in his Usurpation of Richard III 'Such was his renown in warfare that, whenever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his generalship' (p. 65).

Also, in January 1483 the Rolls of Parliament recorded that the King, Lords and Commons
'understand and consider that the Duke [of Gloucester], being Warden of the West Marches, by his diligent labours … has subdued a great part of the west borders of Scotland, adjoining England, by the space of thirty miles and more … and has [secured] divers parts thereof to be under the obedience of [the King] to the great surety and ease of the north parts of England'.

PS Re bones - a high protein diet - especially one with high salt content - can cause problems with calcium absorption in susceptible people. Calcium is essential for the development of strong, dense bone mass.

Wasn't Richard's diet very high in marine (salty?) protein? Just a thought - we really do need some expert comment here, not just me googling.

I'd have thought that most of the population would have had a diet very high in salt when compared to today's diet - relying as they did on dryed salt fish, pickled pork and smoked salted bacon, for a lot of the year. But in that regard I would have thought Richard, as one of the nobility, and so able to eat a greater proportion of fresh produce, would have had a diet considerably less salty than most of his fellow countryfolk. But then again Richard and his fellow nobles would almost certainly have had very, very much more protein, especially that from red meat, than the lower classes. I don't actually know that much detail about late medaeval diet - I'm more familiar with that of Tudor times, but I'm guessing it was not greatly different.

But I'm not sure how much any of this is of relevance.


Editted a bit as I'm doing breakfasts at the same time.

Most people did not get a lot of protein - it was pottage, with lots of organic cabbage for the peasants (with rough bread, it was actually a healthy diet - health nuts pay a fortune for such fare in our times).

The nobility on the other hand stuffed themselves with high quality protein - look at the food on offer at the average banquet.


Probably not of any relevance at all to anything, as you say. I really don't know why I waste my time with all this.

Meles meles wrote:

I'd have thought that most of the population would have had a diet very high in salt when compared to today's diet .

Actually, on reflection, I'm not sure that is true. In the absence of freezing, bottling and canning, salt was vital for food preservation. And accordingly salt was very expensive ... hence of course terms like being seated above the salt (the valued noble guest) or below the salt (the plebs). But although much of the protein available to the common man and his family would have been very salty (especially in winter when they were dependent on preserved foods) the simple fact was, as you pointed out Temp, they simply didn't get that much of it. Compared to a 'modern' diet, where salt is cheap and added to just about every canned, pre-prepared or ready meal, then the average diet probably wasn't excesively high in salt.

It's less the bone mass that is in question than the absence of the kind of pronounced evidence of muscle attachment, the kind that would be expected in someone who had prolonged training in the martial skills. It might be that if, as suggested, the spinal deformity began before or at the start of adolescence, he wasn't able to receive that intensive training. I wonder how that was seen then? Dickie the Wimp?

Nordmann, the letter I meant reads...



‘Plesythe ytt yowr
Lordshyp to vndyrstond that the Dewke of Abany ys comyn ynto Ynglond and he ys
sworne to the Kyngys good grace and the Kyng hasse sent hym ynto Scottlond
wyth lx M1 men yn iij battelles and many lordys of Ynglond wyth hym, Jhesu be
his [good] spede. Wythyn an mon[th] ther hasse ben [wyth] xliiij
townus and velaygys brent en Scottlond and many lordys takyn and slayne
Donfryss ys brent…’ (ed. Alison Hanham, ‘The Cely Letters 1472-1488’, 1975,
p164)


Grant and Pollard both cite this specifically as evidence of *Gloucester* leading forays into Scotland, for reasons best known to themselves...

Temperance wrote:

But a source no one quotes actually comes from the reign of Richard's great-nephew - The Letters and Papers of the Reign of Henry VIII vol. I, ii, p.1056 and p. 1260. Here Lord Dacre, Warden of the West March, writes plaintively to Wolsey that he shouldn't be expected to equal the accomplishment of Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Wolsey replied severely that Dacre is expected to provide the same kind of effectual rule.
...
The point that I was so clumsily trying to make was that a good general knows when it is wise to show mercy. Edinburgh was undefended; most of the Scottish army was at Haddington (where Richard immediately headed). It would have been easy for Richard to have allowed his men to plunder and burn and rape in the Scottish capital; but his discipline over his men was such that this did not happen. If England was anxious to keep the French out of Scotland and to influence Scottish policy by diplomacy and a marriage treaty, surely this was a wise restraint?
...
EDIT: From Dominic Mancini (not known as an admirer of Richard) in his Usurpation of Richard III 'Such was his renown in warfare that, whenever a difficult and dangerous policy had to be undertaken, it would be entrusted to his discretion and his generalship' (p. 65).

Also, in January 1483 the Rolls of Parliament recorded that the King, Lords and Commons
'understand and consider that the Duke [of Gloucester], being Warden of the West Marches, by his diligent labours … has subdued a great part of the west borders of Scotland, adjoining England, by the space of thirty miles and more … and has [secured] divers parts thereof to be under the obedience of [the King] to the great surety and ease of the north parts of England'.

Temp, Dacre was seeking to lower central expectations of his own governance (he had far fewer resources than the Hunchback had enjoyed), and is a source not for said Hunchback's military prowess, but for his postmortem reputation, once Henry the Liberator's supporters had started magnifying his achievement in defeating the Kiddiekiller. Mancini comments on Crookback's reputation under his brother's regime, not his actual prowess, and certainly doesn't seem to have warned the French against backing Henry Tudor. So, what we *still* lack is any actual expression of admiration for Humpty from his contemporary enemies .

As for sparing Edinburgh, there was absolutely no hope of the English ending up doing other than seriously embittering the Scots while trying to take Berwick. To England, Berwick was only of use during war with Scotland - otherwise, it was just a drain on resources. For Scotland , however, Berwick had been the principal port, and its loss crippled the civilian economy of the whole tweed Basin and East Lothian. So, while an astute general does indeed sometimes show mercy when there's something to gain by it, this was not the case with Humpty and Edinburgh...

Catigern wrote:

Nordmann, the letter I meant reads...



‘Plesythe ytt yowr
Lordshyp to vndyrstond that the Dewke of Abany ys comyn ynto Ynglond and he ys
sworne to the Kyngys good grace and the Kyng hasse sent hym ynto Scottlond
wyth lx M1 men yn iij battelles and many lordys of Ynglond wyth hym, Jhesu be
his [good] spede. Wythyn an mon[th] ther hasse ben [wyth] xliiij
townus and velaygys brent en Scottlond and many lordys takyn and slayne
Donfryss ys brent…’ (ed. Alison Hanham, ‘The Cely Letters 1472-1488’, 1975,
p164)


Grant and Pollard both cite this specifically as evidence of *Gloucester* leading forays into Scotland, for reasons best known to themselves...

This is surely Albany doing the dirt on Eddie IV's behalf with a few "lords" sent to keep an eye on him so that he doesn't doublecross him. What source actually puts Gloucester in the same party, let alone jointly leading it? Wool merchants' recollections notwithstanding, I am not aware of any source which could not equally point to a sneaky little runt bringing up the rear and hoping to profit from Albany & Co's hard work up ahead.

Actually that would explain Albany's obvious resentment of the English, and of Richard in particular later. It's bad enough being seen as a traitor to one's own without the lads who are meant to be compensating you well for the effort then attempting to screw you even as you "prove" your allegiance to them.

One can grow to hate the English here ... better shut up

nordmann wrote:

This is surely Albany doing the dirt on Eddie IV's behalf with a few "lords" sent to keep an eye on him so that he doesn't doublecross him. What source actually puts Gloucester in the same party, let alone jointly leading it?

Absolutely! This is the error I of which I meant to warn temp, though I couldn't recall the precise detail at the time and said, incorrectly, that Grant and Ross had cited that letter specifically as evidence of the Hunchback ravaging the Scottish south west, when it was in fact Grant and Pollard. Grant, Pollard and Ross
all describe Gloucester, but not Albany, leading a successful foray into
Dumfriesshire in the spring of 1482 (Grant, op. cit. p125 ; AJ Pollard, ‘North
Eastern England During the Wars of the Roses’, 1990, p239 ; Ross, op. cit.
p287 ), but Ross doesn't link that claim explicitly to said letter. My guess is that Pollard read Ross and than made the error, and that Grant just copied him without going back to check the source .

NB, I did mean that Grant and Pollard had Dickon Kiddiethrottle leading the raiding, not that Ross had attributed to the Hunchback raids made in 1482 that were actually led by Grant and Pollard...

Catigern wrote:

As for sparing Edinburgh, there was absolutely no hope of the English ending up doing other than seriously embittering the Scots while trying to take Berwick. To England, Berwick was only of use during war with Scotland - otherwise, it was just a drain on resources. For Scotland , however, Berwick had been the principal port, and its loss crippled the civilian economy of the whole tweed Basin and East Lothian. So, while an astute general does indeed sometimes show mercy when there's something to gain by it, this was not the case with Humpty and Edinburgh...

Oh.

I didn't know any of that. I've been a bit naïve, haven't I?

Seems actually they were all a bunch of right bastards...

Will keep reading.

Grant and Pollard might have done a better job. For all Gloucester's claims to military prowess it's an inescapable fact that Berwick Rangers still play in the Scottish League.

But it is amazing how one historian's assumption (and a dodgy one at that) can so readily become "fact" simply through being repeated enough, isn't it? It may well be that Richard was the Stormin' Norman of his time but the matter is not going to be decided either on the basis of badly interpreted philological remnants or through hurried medical deductions based on what could well be the skeleton of some poor crooked nun (whose diet would also have been on a par with rich blokes in her day - as you can see I am still unconvinced by the Leicester bones - the more I read about the circular reasoning involved in their analysis the less faith I'm having in them too).

As ferval said earlier - why all the fuss about him anyway? This grotesque devotion to politicians is unedifying even when directed to living specimens. When it's directed to long dead ones it really goes beyond the grotesque and into the area of mental health problems. But I might add that excessive hatred of the same long dead chancers also strikes me as odd. A right bastard Dickie may have been, but he was operating in a field populated exclusively by the equivalent, and died in a field at the hands of a lucky one.

I do think he should be buried in York though, and with all the pomp and circumstance the establishment can muster. It will add to the enjoyment so much more later when the actual body is found and the nun's relatives come to claim back their own hunchback.

nordmann wrote:

As ferval said earlier - why all the fuss about him anyway? This grotesque devotion to politicians is unedifying even when directed to living specimens. When it's directed to long dead ones it really goes beyond the grotesque and into the area of mental health problems. But I might add that excessive hatred of the same long dead chancers also strikes me as odd. A right bastard Dickie may have been, but he was operating in a field populated exclusively by the equivalent, and died in a field at the hands of a lucky one.

Unedifying, grotesque and a sign of mental health problems - that's pretty offensive, nordmann.

What about the DNA - two matches - surely that was conclusive? But I know nothing of such matters, so perhaps the skellington is that of an unlucky and belligerent Joan of Arc type nun who liked going into battle with the boys and who had a crooked back and who was a Plantagenet. Didn't one of Cis 'n' Dick's kids go into a nunnery? Perhaps it's her. No, I tell a lie; I'm thinking of Bridget of York, one of the Ted 'n' Liz brood.

For me, the "fuss" - as you and ferval call it - is all about a damn good story.

Did Richard of Gloucester ever have any dealings with Gretna? Their football club (now defunct), though Scottish, used to be part of the *English* league. They gave Bolton Wanderers a scare in 1993.

I'm feeling a tad huffish with you all, but I am fighting to overcome such unworthy emotion. Will take a calming tablet.

ferval wrote:

It's less the bone mass that is in question than the absence of the kind of pronounced evidence of muscle attachment, the kind that would be expected in someone who had prolonged training in the martial skills. It might be that if, as suggested, the spinal deformity began before or at the start of adolescence, he wasn't able to receive that intensive training. I wonder how that was seen then? Dickie the Wimp?

Have they got the right body? because from what I've read of Bosworth, Richard III killed Henry's standard bearer, Sir William Brandon and unhorsed Sir John Cheney [ by all accounts a very burly individual]

Quote :

Unedifying, grotesque and a sign of mental health problems - that's pretty offensive, nordmann.

Offence is where one takes it, I've always found. Anyway my observation was directed against all those who declare a passionate love (or hate) for a character who was deserving of neither, and therefore of necessity discuss a person who in all likelihood did not - indeed could not - exist. Very unhistorical an approach, though an eminently hysterical one. Fascination with the history of and surrounding him is something else entirely of course.

I note you have nothing sensible to say about Gretna Football Club.

Trike,

That nun was pretty formidable!

Temperance wrote:

What about the DNA - two matches - surely that was conclusive?

It is conclusive only according to once source Temp, that is the point. The archaeology and research was requested and funded by the RIII Society, and, I might add yet again, without the all important peer review. This is not an unbiased source nor is it standard procedure.

I still think Mary Beard said it best, if memory serves, 'The public deserve a good story, but they also deserve a verified story'.

PS No need to be huffy or defensive Temp, no-one is directing any criticism at you. Just the ones who have an unhealthy crush on a 500yr old bag of bones and (as Nordmann so aptly put it) a person who cannot have existed at that time and in that position.

But I haven't had a good huff for *ages*, ID.

I wish I could be huffy at Catigerm, but damn it, he is so funny.

Temperance wrote:

But I haven't had a good huff for *ages*, ID.
I wish I could be huffy at Catigerm, but damn it, he is so funny.

Humpf ! .... Well you were quite huffy with me only a week ago - though I admit I was quite rude.

And as regards humour ... well I do try my best but I just can't quite equal those two:

"Hello, I'm Nords and this is my friend Catty, how bona to vada your eke!"


... I think I'd better just stick to random comments about salty food rather than attempting salty jokes

Were you rude, mon petit sprout de Bruxelles? I really can't remember.

Nordy and Catty are a pair, aren't they? Very witty and jolly clever too - ils savent tres bien leurs oignons historiques. Whereas we lesser mortals can only google and hope...

I thought my reference to the Henry VIII state papers was *everso* impressive though.