"Probable slight curvature"?
Mate, his spine is like a question-mark! Reckon old Shakespeare had it spot on, especially "crookback" and not "hunchback"
| WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/ |
|
| Richard III - yes, it's him https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=543680 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | El Barbudo [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:32 pm ] | ||||
| Post subject: | Richard III - yes, it's him | ||||
|
|||||
| Author: | Ferocious Aardvark [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 2:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
"Probable slight curvature"? Mate, his spine is like a question-mark! Reckon old Shakespeare had it spot on, especially "crookback" and not "hunchback"
|
|
| Author: | El Barbudo [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
I did mishear the sideways curvature as "slight" curvature, apologies for that  ... but, nonetheless, they are saying it was a sideways thing (scoliosis rather than the kyphosis that you'd have expected if Richard had been crookbacked or hunchbacked) giving him one shoulder visibly higher than the other, not a crooked back.So the portrait showing him with a "hump" was not accurate and the stories put around in Tudor times about his appearance were not true either. What we would need next would be the examination of a) the bones found in the Tower of London and b) the bones in coffins found in Windsor Castle ... to DNA test to see if they are the bones of the Princes (nephews of Richard, i.e. Edward IV's sons) and to see if any cause of death is evident. Can't see it happening though as it requires the Queen's say-so and, as she is descended from Henry VII (whose army slew Richard), why would she want to? |
|
| Author: | Durham Giant [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard. thats Lancastrians for you. |
|
| Author: | Standee [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort. |
|
| Author: | Durham Giant [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
Standee wrote:honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort. Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18 
|
|
| Author: | Standee [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
Durham Giant wrote:Is that what your parents said to you after you turned 18 No, but thanks for your concern, idiot. |
|
| Author: | El Barbudo [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
Durham Giant wrote:It is entirely possible that Henry VII killed the princes and then blamed Richard. thats Lancastrians for you. Tudors mate, not Lancastrians. Henry VII's claim to be descended via the Lancastrian line from John O'Gaunt was, erm, putting it kindly, tenuous. |
|
| Author: | El Barbudo [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
Standee wrote:honestly, what a total waste of money, time and effort. Blimey, what have you got against this then? No profit in it for multinationals or something? |
|
| Author: | Hillbilly_Red [ Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Richard III - yes, it's him |
Now we want to know: was Edward IV a legitimate son of Richard Duke of York and so entitled to be Duke of York/King of England? |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|