rohwyn:meganphntmgrl:fuckyeahrichardiii:ribbonsandhyssop:fuckyeahrichardiii:angelshavethecolt:In lig
rohwyn:meganphntmgrl:fuckyeahrichardiii:ribbonsandhyssop:fuckyeahrichardiii:angelshavethecolt:In light of recent events, here is Richard III of England’s signature. the PURTIEST R’s that ever were R’d in bastard cursive(or whatever)My husband is a manuscripts researcher and paleographer (mostly 16th c. but whatev). When I showed him Richard’s signature in the image from R&A’s marriage contract (thank you R3 Society) he complimented the clarity and form of Dickon’s hand. So, expert analysis tell us Richard wrote real good and real purdy, although somewhat tartier after he became king.Anne Neville’s signature is also really interesting because she styles herself Warwick and spells it all wonky and phonetically. I like her hand, too.Yes, he does have consistently good handwriting; this is one indication that he may have received clerical training and been destined for a career in the Church at some point. I think that’s the one signature of Anne’s that survives. They signed one of their books together (the Bible, maybe?). He always signs off as “Gloucestre”.Paleography rocks! Your husband must love it.The church thing makes sense, considering he was the youngest son (though I’m not sure how standard that practice actually was) and there’s a vague possibility- this is only a hypothesis!- that he didn’t come off all that strong/able as a kid (what with the “Richard liveth yet” comment about him as a child, and was maybe not considered too suitable for warfare growing up. And then he kicked those assumptions in the ass.I recall reading a comment about his lettering suggesting a high degree of competence as a writer, even an unusual level for someone of his background. That may well suggest training for the Church. It may also suggest sheer determination to be really good at damn near everything. -- source link