Richard III & the Car Park

[Phil H]

Well, you're right there, beowulf.

Although evidently about the second Tudor king, The tudors was actually a subtley disguised account of thr eventful life at a Tennis Club in Spain, and the management problems it faced.

Strange how people believe that a cast dressed up in costumes must be about history. The script of The Tudors should have shown anyone that it was less historically accurate and far less insightful that the Black Adder series.

But at least I now know that Holbein lied. Henry VIII was SLIM!!

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

That's very funny, Phil, and I would say, lol, except I hate writing that, because I always feel like I am playing hooky from junior high school when I do.

However, just for the record, Henry VIII, while never exactly a runway model, was fairly slim in his youth, wasn't he?

I'll have to note for the record, that I don't know much about the show The Tudors, because it comes on one of the channels my cable service makes me pay for separately here, which isn't worth it, because eventually it'll be available somewhere else, or on Netflix, and the channel is something like $17/month. That's about 10 & 1/2 pounds. If you don't have Netflix over there, I pay $12.99/month to be able to stream unlimited videos of the thousands of things they have available, plus, they also send me DVDs from a list as fast as I can watch them and send them back.

Geez. Does anybody else remember rushing home to catch something on TV, because that was when it was on, and then it was over forever, except maybe summer reruns, but not every episode made the rerun line-up? I was trying to explain that to my son once, and he didn't really understand.

[Phil H]

There is a terracotta bust, supposed to be of Henry VIII when a young man (NOT the one of him as a child) which suggests he was always "fleshy".

In his youth, he must have resembled his maternal grandfather, Edward IV - exceptionally tall, handsome (by the standards of the day), aubournly fair (red gold) hair, ruddy complexion. In build, I imagine him as like a modern American wrestler - not gym fit or toned but rather bulky and rather heavy. Solid one might say, and as unlike jonathan Rhys-Meyers as one could find, I suspect!

Francis I of France, as I recall, bested him at wrestling during the diplomatic conference known as "Field of Cloth of Gold".

Richard III, I see as athletically lean and rather bony - his face in the relatively contemporary portraits suggests that. He may have been a worrier - his finger plucking at the ring on his finger - a man who thought deeply, brooded. Difficult to know, brooding, introvert, but once giving his trust, a loyal friend. His motto was "Loyaltie Me Liee" (Loyalty binds me) which may have been his undoing.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

OK. I just Googled Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. Yeah. Even though I knew it wasn't the same person, somehow I was picturing John Rhys-Davies when he was young, just because of the name, and thinking, that there's a guy who, to look at now, you might not guess was reasonably trim when he was young. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers looks like he has TB. My gawd, my grandmother would take one look at him, and never stop cooking.

Who cast him as Henry VIII? Nevermind. I just looked at the IMDb entry. James Frain as Cromwell? Is this like the version of the Karen Carpenter story with Barbie dolls? Aside from the fact that Frain is even skinnier than Rhys-Meyers, I always thought he had this weird, child-molester vibe.

[Phil H]

I secretly do quite like the series, Rivkah (though I confess that only to my most intimate friends!).

The politics is actually done quite well. I like the atmosphere of conspiracy and de-stabilised power. Jeremy Northan is quite good as Thomas More; and while Sam Neill is facially nor physically anything like Wolsey, he gets a sense of the man's ruthlessness.

My concerns are that younger viewers will gain a distorted sense of history which will be difficult to overcome. rather as the Michael Caine 1988 mini-series and the film From Hell, have made many believe that the "royal conspiracy" is the absolute truth about JtR!!

The Tudors transposes events, Henry's sister Mary marries the wrong king(!) - and murders him!!! need I say more.

Despite the prevalent popular view, and the series focus on, Henry as a man obsessed with sex, the actual King was something of a prude. He was unusual in only having a single mistress at a time ( a sort of morality, I suppose) and did not like hearing "blue" or smutty jokes.

There is a wonderful book by Lacey Baldwin Smith called "Henry VIII: The Mask of Royalty" which is a freudian study of henry as he approaches death and looks back on what has moulded him. Full of detail and insight. Highly recommended.

David Starkey's short study of Henry VIII (not to be confused with his more recent volume on the young king) is also insightful. It shows how Henry was effectively cut off in his chamber by his close servants, who controlled access, whom he saw, what he heard etc etc. An autocrat made almsot a puppet by the self-serving people he chose to serve him. Far from the common image fostered by Charles Laughton and others in film.

The BBC series from the 70s with Keith Michel as the king bears up well.

Phil H

[Chris]

James Frain as Cromwell? Is this like the version of the Karen Carpenter story with Barbie dolls?

There's a nice page of comparisons between the originals and the screen versions here:

http://www.aboutjamesfrain.com/tudor%20portrait/album/tudport%20lightbox/index.html

I thought the one for Archbishop Cranmer was particularly funny:


The strange thing is that the real Cranmer looks almost more like Bernard Hepton than Bernard Hepton does.

[Beowulf]

.


I'll have to note for the record, that I don't know much about the show The Tudors, because it comes on one of the channels my cable service makes me pay for separately here, which isn't worth it, because eventually it'll be available somewhere else, or on Netflix, and the channel is something like $17/month. That's about 10 & 1/2 pounds. If you don't have Netflix over there, I pay $12.99/month to be able to stream unlimited videos of the thousands of things they have available, plus, they also send me DVDs from a list as fast as I can watch them and send them back...

...Geez. Does anybody else remember rushing home to catch something on TV, because that was when it was on, and then it was over forever, except maybe summer reruns, but not every episode made the rerun line-up? I was trying to explain that to my son once, and he didn't really understand.

Well, inaccurate as it was, I did love the Tudors, it was well done. I've read some of the books on Henry the VIII, Carollys Erickson's was good. I want to check out the book someone else mentioned on here, sounds good.

Let me save you some money, you can watch quite a few here on youtube. Amazon sells them by the series or the episode and you can watch it on the computer but you tube is free

Regarding Richard III here is the Two Princes, more about the Princes, from Youtube and it was great too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFv_kcJyhNE

My thoughts are, if Richard was innocent of the murder of the prince and the Pretender was real, then what of the famous ghost story?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUYkl-O6k08

[Errata]

If Netflix still has it streaming, take a look at the movie Ghost Ship (the one from 2002), which I'll admit from the outset, is not a great movie. There's a scene where they find a stack of gold ingots. Watch the actors toss them around, and pick up two at once.

Now, I can tell you that a really cheap set of weight, for lifting, you know, home gym, are plastic over cement, and you can get a set totaling about 120lbs for around $25. So don't tell me that you can't make heavier fake gold bars. Every single one doesn't have to be that heavy, just the four or five the actors handle. This was a multi-million dollar picture.

I can even forgive SPOILER: the scene at the end, where four or six actors are carrying a rotting wood box full of several hundred ingots, which would weigh more than a modern car, because, well, something. But I have seen people in a high school play do a better job of acting like something that wasn't heavy was.

People toss around four and half pounds. I mean, I don't want to get hit in the head with it, but it weighs as much as a normal brick. It's not dark matter wrapped in shiny or something.

As for budget, don't get me started. You gotta get a guy to make a mold. Now he's a professional, he's got pride, so it's going to be a plastic or rubber mold with the US sigil on the top of it. Which is going to cost about 80 bucks per mold. But then you can't just paint the cement gold, because it will look different. No it has to be wrapped in actual metal. Probably a high tin content brass. But of course, you can't buy that at a hardware store, so someone has to smelt it. Then you have to dip the concrete bar in the brass, for an even coating, then clean it up and polish it off. Now, that's blacksmith work right there, and no prop guy is allowed to do blacksmith work. It's a union thing. So they have to hire a whole other to come in and do it. Extra unionized employee for three days worth of work, plus health insurance, plus hazard insurance... Seriously. For something that doesn't cost much, it costs a ton. It cost 25,000 dollars to insure me to use a nail gun. A nail gun. And that was theater, not film. The film work I've done, I haven't been allowed to touch tools. Not even a hammer. To beat the hell out of a suit of armor to make it look sufficiently used, I had to go out to the parking lot, away from supervision, and use a rock. The whole thing is ludicrous.

[RivkahChaya]

I secretly do quite like the series, Rivkah (though I confess that only to my most intimate friends!)

Guilty pleasures: I enjoy watching SpongeBob Squarepants with my son a little more than I should.

rather as the Michael Caine 1988 mini-series and the film From Hell, have made many believe that the "royal conspiracy" is the absolute truth about JtR!!

*sigh* As many problems as that had, it was a great piece of television, and I wish the ending had been more plausible. I suppose the general public wouldn't have liked an ambiguous ending, but something not-impossible would have been better. Also, I could put up with bad characterizations, like Lusk, and the idea that the victims all knew one another (especially since the just knew one another casually, as people who lived in the same area, not as people who participated in the same conspiracy, as in Murder by Decree), but a couple of the it-defeats-logic bits of police work, like Micheal Caine puffing across a set, as though he'd really run from Berner St. to Mitre Square, with a stopwatch (did they even have those then?) to see whether JTR could have done it was just silly.

The BBC series from the 70s with Keith Michel as the king bears up well.

I really enjoyed that. My parents watched it in the 70s, when PBS brought it to the US, and I didn't follow well-- I was about 5-- but I remember that there was something very engrossing about it, so back in 2004, when my husband was away for a couple of months doing some military training, I rented it. It was called The Six Wives of Henry VIII. IIRC, each wife got three 1-hr episodes, although they overlapped, so Anne Boleyn appears in the last "Catherine of Aragon" episode, and Catherine appears in the first one or two of the "Anne" episodes. It's nicely done, so in the last "Catherine," you see Anne from Catherine's POV, then in the first "Anne," you see Catherine from Anne's POV. The producers didn't spare expenses casting good actresses as the queens.

Henry generally gets madder and meaner as the series goes on, until he is very old, but you have to remember that you are seeing him through the wives eyes. He's very gentlemanly and kind in the first episode with Catherine of Aragon, and seems genuine grief-stricken when Jane Seymour is dying. The only time he's sort of goofy, and not sexual at all is with Anne of Cleves. I watched it twice to make sure I wasn't imagining it.

ERRATA: I forgot about the union thing. However, I still think the actors could do a better job of not tossing the ingots around. I don't remember whether it was Ghost Ship, or another film where some people found a cache of bank-sized ingots, and someone picked up one, and tossed it with a flip, like a juggling club. Unforgivable.

[Monty]

From The Leicester Mercury online version-

Richard III dig: Leicester archaeologists to reconstruct the face of Greyfriars skeleton
Friday, November 16, 2012Leicester MercuryFollow
By Peter Warzynski

Archaeologists working to identify the Greyfriars remains are reconstructing the 500-year-old skeleton's face to give people a possible glimpse of King Richard III.

Scientists at the University of Leicester are using techniques similar to those which recreated Tutankhamen's face more than 3,000 years after the young Pharaoh died.


Richard III portrait. Leicester archaeologists are going to reconstruct the face using bones uncovered at Greyfriars

• • • •
The Leicester skeleton, found at a council car park in August, has already been subjected to a CT scan which will allow a specialist team to build a 3D digital picture of the face.

They hope to reveal the results in the new year.

Professor Lin Foxhall, head of archaeology at the university, said: "We've provided 3D scans of all the bones, including the skull, to a specialist team, which will build up a picture of how he used to look.

"It will be very interesting, because of course there are portraits of him and if the images come back and they're similar it's another piece of evidence which will strengthen the identification process."

The team is continuing its work to identify the remains.

Another facet of the identification is the comparison of the DNA from the remains with that of London furniture maker Michael Ibsen. Mr Ibsen is believed to be a relative of Richard III.

His genes are being tested against those of the skeleton to see if they match.

Results are expected to be revealed early next year.

However, University of Leicester pro vice-chancellor Professor Kevin Schurer – a specialist in family and surname history – has also indicated there may be a second line of descent which the team are exploring.

Prof Foxhall said: "We're hoping to track down another possible descendent who will provide another sample of DNA.

"I'm not sure if we've contacted the person yet, but I don't want to give too much away during this early stage."

Other tests include environmental sampling and radiocarbon dating, which will all be used to help establish whether or not the bones belong to the former monarch.

Analysis of burial practices, health and diet and living conditions will all be used to build a picture of the person found at Greyfriars.

Scientists will pay particular attention to the battle scars found on the skull and the abnormal spinal conditions.

These are consistent with historical accounts of Richard III – without themselves confirming the individual's identity.

Richard Buckley, co-director of the university's archaeology service, said: "We are looking at many different lines of inquiry.

"The evidence from these will all add up to give us more assurance about the identity of the individual.

"As well as the DNA testing, we have to take in all of the other pieces of evidence which tell us about the person's lifestyle – including his health and where he grew up.

"There are many specialists involved in the process and so we have to co-ordinate all of the tests so the analysis is done in a specific order."


Monty

[Phil H]

Thanks Monty - the most detailed report I've seen yet on what is happening.

I always hoped they'd try a facial reconstruction - but if the artists involved knows who the skull belonged to it could somewhat influence the results. I'd rather it had been done "blind" and then be compared to the surviving (late) portraits. Still, I suppose their methods are tried and tested.

It is clear that the Leicester team are taking no chances on making a mistake with the identification. I get the impression that they are ensuring that every aspect of the finds are examined - to leave no "loop-holes" for the sceptical! Another DNA source, looking at the burial in detail, etc etc.

Also the presentation of the finds - a facial reconstruction is good for media coverage - a picture that will probably be front-page news. Also, if they have scans of all the bones found, we will no doubt have a full body reconstruction of how any deformity might have appeared.

I wonder if Madam Tussauds is taking an interest??

Thanks again Monty, your reports are much appreciated.

Phil H

[Archaic]

Article About Tests Underway

I read this article yesterday that gives a bit of detail about the tests underway. It says they are testing the soil in which the body was found (and in which it presumably decomposed) for clues to the individual's health and diet.

It also says they are trying to do a CT scan (Computed Tomography Scan) of the individual's face to try to visualize his possible features.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/16/richard-iii-skeleton-mutilated-bones-england-king_n_2143482.html?utm_hp_ref=science

I've been wondering if they're going to attempt a full Forensic Facial Reconstruction, such as the 3-dimensional type using modeling clay, artificial eyeballs, etc.

If the DNA comes back indicating the skeleton is Richard III's, who could resist?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Errata]

Thanks Monty - the most detailed report I've seen yet on what is happening.

I always hoped they'd try a facial reconstruction - but if the artists involved knows who the skull belonged to it could somewhat influence the results. I'd rather it had been done "blind" and then be compared to the surviving (late) portraits. Still, I suppose their methods are tried and tested.

It is clear that the Leicester team are taking no chances on making a mistake with the identification. I get the impression that they are ensuring that every aspect of the finds are examined - to leave no "loop-holes" for the sceptical! Another DNA source, looking at the burial in detail, etc etc.

Also the presentation of the finds - a facial reconstruction is good for media coverage - a picture that will probably be front-page news. Also, if they have scans of all the bones found, we will no doubt have a full body reconstruction of how any deformity might have appeared.

I wonder if Madam Tussauds is taking an interest??

Thanks again Monty, your reports are much appreciated.

Phil H

My only complaint about facial reconstructions is the one that forensic artists are fully aware of, but apparently law enforcement is not. When you look at a face to see if you recognize it, people first look at the eyes. you can recognize the eyes of someone close to you (though probably not a coworker). Color of course being a HUGE factor in that. Busts and sketches have no color. The second thing people look at is the nose. Now anything involving the bridge of the nose shows in the bone. But if a guy has a large fleshy bulbous nose, that won't show. Then the lips, which is almost always statistically based, then ears which for a forensic artist is always a total crap shoot unless there is an injury on the skull that would have gone through the ear.

In other words, we recognize people through the fleshy bits, not the bony bits. Which is when a forensic rendering is used to try and identify a body, the first person to link the two faces together is almost always a distant acquaintance. Like their pharmacist, or a neighbor in their apartment building. Someone who doesn't know them well enough to have gotten past the general face shape recognition. In my forensic anthro class, three of us secretly had X-rays of our heads, which were given to a forensic artist (the teachers wife who was quite good). When she finished the busts, everyone in the class was asked to see if they could identify any of the busts. And we were right there with them, available for comparison. Three people identified mine. I identified mine wrong. I thought it was one of the other subjects. Everyone else said they have never met that person, and at the time, I was dating one of those people. Put a picture of me next to the bust, and you can see it. Otherwise there was just nothing there that I would recognize about myself.

And apparently I had a dent in my skull I never knew about, because I have curly hair and you can't feel it through the hair unless you know what you are looking for. When I saw it, I knew exactly how I got it, I just didn't know it was there. So that was odd.

[Phil H]

All good points errata.

I suppose that, if the final reconstruction of the fce, has broadly the right bone structure and "shape" of the face we know from Richard's portraits (none of them immediately contemporary) - then it might tell us something.

Phil H

[Errata]

All good points errata.

I suppose that, if the final reconstruction of the fce, has broadly the right bone structure and "shape" of the face we know from Richard's portraits (none of them immediately contemporary) - then it might tell us something.

Phil H

I dunno.. portraiture being what it was, I think all we can say is that he had brown hair, and maybe a pointed chin and a long nose. The chin will come out from the bone, but the nose may well not.