Bending the Truth?
February 27, 2013 Richard S. Sylvester commenting on Thomas More's description of Richard III (see page 7 of the Yale Edition of the Complete Works, Volume 2) writes:
This detail (crook-backed) is not found in Rous, the Croyland Chronicle, Fabyan or Polydore and it is certainly not noticeable in the contemporary portraits of Richard. ... If Richard had such a deformity it could not have been conspicuous.
In Richard III: The Unseen Story Dr. Piers Mitchell of Cambridge University stated that the remains discovered in Leicester displayed a curve of 60 to 80 degrees - a very noticeable and very conspicuous deformity.
The most worrying aspect of the work that has taken place in Leicester, is that the appearance of the curved spine in the trench made those involved prejudge the evidence.
Professor Buckley spoke of the hairs standing up on the back of his neck, when he saw the curved spine.
The site manager expostulated because, well if you have a guy with scoliosis, you have Richard III.
Dr. Appleby expressed the same view.
They all appear to suffer from an overdose of Shakespeare and very little knowledge of the complexity of the evidence. There is no historical evidence that Richard III had scoliosis. No evidence. So discovering a skeleton with scoliosis proves nothing.
It is curious that the More4 programme lacked any use of attributed written sources of evidence. They have been surpassed, we are to believe, by the omniscience of these scientific processes. But if we begin on the wrong foot and seek to prove something based on a prejudgment, we should not be surprised if we find it.
In the end, Dr. Appleby was convinced of the identity because there were too many pieces of evidence which could not coincidentally fit with the life of anyone else but Richard III. Only "minor" details, like the fact that the radius showed no signs of strong muscle attachments, in a man who used heavy weapons from the age of 17!
If we cannot explain the lack of muscle attachments and we have to rely on fishy suppositions, then all we have left is DNA. And the programme stated that 1-2% of the population have the same DNA as the one they sought to match.
So in fact, they have proved nothing, let alone that the remains in Leicester are those of King Richard III.
Reader Comments (1)
A "lateral curvature is constantly accompanied by rotation of the vertebrae on a vertical axis, the body of the vertebra rotating towards the convexity of the curve and the spinous process away from the convexity. ... The ultimate visible deformity tends to be worst in thoracic scoliosis and least in lumbar scoliosis." (p.181-2 in Outline of Orthopaedics by J. Crawford Adams, 7th edition)
The remains in Leicester had thoracic scoliosis, so your assertion that it would not have been visible to anyone but his wife is laughable. Besides, King Richard III was "dressed" in his armour by others. Would they not have noticed?
"There is marked rotation of the vertebrae, causing posterior prominence of the ribs on the side of the convexity." (p.182 in Outline of Orthopaedics by J. Crawford Adams, 7th edition)
Someone suffering from this degree of scoliosis (60 to 80 degrees was quoted on the programme last Wednesday and termed severe) could not have hidden it. When he bent over there would have been a prominent hump on the side of the convexity (and that is a doctor's opinion, not mine).
Alluding to the paintings as evidence that Richard III had scoliosis is out of date since everyone admits the paintings were altered to give this appearance after his death. Do you really want to use such people to support your case?