Tweet
Do we know if Richard ever had an injury that could have caused a rib fracture? Yes, I know, he fought in wars, and it's pretty likely that something like that did happen. I'm just wondering if there's a record, and maybe a record of him being laid up for a while. Is there a record of something like a fall from a horse that failed to make a jump, or a blow from an ax, that didn't penetrate his armor, but left a bruise that stayed for weeks?
He was, I believe wounded at Barnet in 1471, when he was around 18 years old. But he was well enough to fight at Tewkesbury a few weeks later.
The "myth" is that he was born deformed in some way (the myth adds an exceptionally long gestation period, born with hair and teeth and a hump etc). A surviving list of the children of Richard and Cecily of York includes a note against Richard's name that he "liveth yet" - this has been taken to imply that he was a frail child. A physical deformity might explain that. Also his apparent closeness to his mother throughout his life - Cecily (known as "Proud Cis/The Rose of Raby") outlived him by 10 years and died aged around 90 in 1495.
His brothers were tall - Edward IV around six four and blond. Richard has often been thought of as smaller and dark - more like his Mortimer father than his Beaufort mother. However, von Poppelau, a German visitor who met the King in mid 1484, described him as three fingers taller than himself, also as much more lean with delicate arms and legs. So unless, the German was particularly short himself, it suggests Richard was not very short.
In his foreword to his edition of Mancini, the scholar C A J Armstrong noted that von Poppelau was noted for immense strength - thus he pictured Richard as tall and emaciated with a possible stoop. However, we do not know, as Kendall points out, whether von Poppelau was short and squat.
Stowe the collector of anecdotes spoke to men who in their youth had seen the King and reported that he was of boldily shape comely enough, only of low stature.
In an oration delivered in Richard's presence in September 1484, a scots envoy said of Richard: "that nature never enclosed within a smaller frame so great a mind or such remarkable powers.
So make of it what you will.
!0 years after Richard's death, an ill-wisher in York called him "crouchback" and caused offence. (Richard remained poular in Yorkshire.) Kendall suggests that this reflected a slight inequality in Richard's shoulders perceptible, but not sufficient to be labelled a deformity or intrude on an onlooker's notice. (Good tailoring could, of course, hide much - my addition.)
An earlier Planatagent, I think off-hand a brother of Edward I or II, was also called Richard Crouchback. So a genetic throwback in some way?
Phil H
He was, I believe wounded at Barnet in 1471, when he was around 18 years old. But he was well enough to fight at Tewkesbury a few weeks later.
The "myth" is that he was born deformed in some way (the myth adds an exceptionally long gestation period, born with hair and teeth and a hump etc). A surviving list of the children of Richard and Cecily of York includes a note against Richard's name that he "liveth yet" - this has been taken to imply that he was a frail child. A physical deformity might explain that. Also his apparent closeness to his mother throughout his life - Cecily (known as "Proud Cis/The Rose of Raby") outlived him by 10 years and died aged around 90 in 1495.
His brothers were tall - Edward IV around six four and blond. Richard has often been thought of as smaller and dark - more like his Mortimer father than his Beaufort mother. However, von Poppelau, a German visitor who met the King in mid 1484, described him as three fingers taller than himself, also as much more lean with delicate arms and legs. So unless, the German was particularly short himself, it suggests Richard was not very short.
In his foreword to his edition of Mancini, the scholar C A J Armstrong noted that von Poppelau was noted for immense strength - thus he pictured Richard as tall and emaciated with a possible stoop. However, we do not know, as Kendall points out, whether von Poppelau was short and squat.
Stowe the collector of anecdotes spoke to men who in their youth had seen the King and reported that he was of boldily shape comely enough, only of low stature.
In an oration delivered in Richard's presence in September 1484, a scots envoy said of Richard: "that nature never enclosed within a smaller frame so great a mind or such remarkable powers.
So make of it what you will.
!0 years after Richard's death, an ill-wisher in York called him "crouchback" and caused offence. (Richard remained poular in Yorkshire.) Kendall suggests that this reflected a slight inequality in Richard's shoulders perceptible, but not sufficient to be labelled a deformity or intrude on an onlooker's notice. (Good tailoring could, of course, hide much - my addition.)
An earlier Planatagent, I think off-hand a brother of Edward I or II, was also called Richard Crouchback. So a genetic throwback in some way?
Phil H
Comment