Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Richard III: Facial reconstruction shows king's features
BBC ^ | 5 February 2013 | Staff

Posted on 02/25/2013 9:06:05 AM PST by Red Badger

A facial reconstruction based on the skull of Richard III has revealed how the English king may have looked.

The king's skeleton was found under a car park in Leicester during an archaeological dig.

The reconstructed face has a slightly arched nose and prominent chin, similar to features shown in portraits of Richard III painted after his death.

Historian and author John Ashdown-Hill said seeing it was "almost like being face to face with a real person".

The development comes after archaeologists from the University of Leicester confirmed the skeleton found last year was the 15th Century king's, with DNA from the bones having matched that of descendants of the monarch's family. 'Very handsome'

Richard was killed in the Battle of Bosworth in 1485, at the age of 32 and after just two years on the throne, having been challenged by the forces of Henry Tudor, the future Henry VII.

Dr Ashdown-Hill, who wrote The Last Days of Richard III, said: "The most obvious features in portraits are the shape of the nose and the chin and both of those are visible in the facial reconstruction."

Richard III Society member Philippa Langley, originator of the search, said on a Channel 4 documentary earlier: "It doesn't look like the face of a tyrant. I'm sorry but it doesn't.

"He's very handsome. It's like you could just talk to him, have a conversation with him right now."

Layers of muscle and skin were added by computer to a scan of the skull and the result was made into a three-dimensional plastic model.

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: coupdetat; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; helixmakemineadouble; henrytheusurper; henryvii; kingrichardiii; murderedbytraitors; plantanget; richardiii; royals; shakespeare; unitedkingdom
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

The unveiling of the reconstruction was attended by Michael Ibsen, Richard's 17th generation nephew, who also provided DNA for tests on the bones

Richard III died aged 32 in the Battle of Bosworth

1 posted on 02/25/2013 9:06:09 AM PST by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

GGG Ping!........


2 posted on 02/25/2013 9:07:07 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

His kingdom for a horse ...


3 posted on 02/25/2013 9:09:44 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Thanks largely to Shakespeare, this unfortunate monarch gets one of the biggest bum raps in history along with people such as Joe McCarthy, Pius XII, and Mary Surratt.


4 posted on 02/25/2013 9:10:32 AM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Hew was king therefore he was an a-hole.

this unfortunate monarch gets one of the biggest bum raps in history

5 posted on 02/25/2013 9:14:23 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

That just looks like a portrait of Richard Ibsen.


6 posted on 02/25/2013 9:16:47 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Who?......


7 posted on 02/25/2013 9:21:07 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

His 17th great nephew, pictured next to him.


8 posted on 02/25/2013 9:29:16 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

His name is Michael..........


9 posted on 02/25/2013 9:30:27 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

They look ike twins. The eyes, the brow, the chin, the shape of the face.

10 posted on 02/25/2013 9:32:04 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Why does that remind me of the Duchess of Cornwall?...........


11 posted on 02/25/2013 9:32:56 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Yes, Michael. Reading too fast.


12 posted on 02/25/2013 9:33:22 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Whether scoundrel or martyr, Richard III was the last of the Plantagenet kings. The Tudors sought to erase every vestige of Plantagenet influence and revoked titles and offices to every Plantagenet who wouldn't pledge absolute fidelity to the Tudors.

The first title was not restored until the Tudor rule ended with the death of Elizabeth II roughly a century and a half after Bosworth Field. Even then, it was a minor title to a minor Plantagenet, Lord Aston of Forfar.

He's in my mother's family tree as a cousin or uncle, not direct. The interesting thing is that the purge of the Plantagenets actually accomplished two positive things:

  1. Introduction of meritocracy to fill the scores of government and religious offices left vacant by the Plantagenet purge.
  2. Driving many of the deposed Plantagenet's into what would grow into competing schools of religious thought which planted the seeds of Puritanism. Oliver Cromwell basically acquired his seat in Parliament from modest family wealth left over by deposed Plantagenet forebears. And scores of our Puritan founding fathers can trace their ancestry back to Plantagenet royalty, including those of my mother.

13 posted on 02/25/2013 9:35:20 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

He’s much better looking than the Dutchess of Cornwall. He looks like Peter Johnson Jr., the legal analyst from Fox News Channel.


14 posted on 02/25/2013 9:35:35 AM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Richard III was one S.O.B., there’s no doubt about it.


15 posted on 02/25/2013 9:36:33 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zot

Worth reading and also the back stories on the Daily Mail about the archeological dig.


16 posted on 02/25/2013 9:37:04 AM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

Here is an even better comparison......

17 posted on 02/25/2013 9:38:09 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Actually, it was 142 years between the battle death of Richard III at Bosworth field (1485) and the restoration of the first title for a Plantagenet (1627).


18 posted on 02/25/2013 9:40:48 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

I was referring to the horse.........


19 posted on 02/25/2013 9:41:03 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

The Princes in the Tower would most likely agree with you.........


20 posted on 02/25/2013 9:43:48 AM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; SunkenCiv

Looks like Laurence Olivier to me.

“Why, I can smile and murder whiles I smile,
And cry ‘content’ to that which grieves my heart,
And wet my cheeks with artificial tears,
And frame my face for all occasions”

Shakespeare’s Richard III


21 posted on 02/25/2013 9:46:28 AM PST by wildbill (You're just jealous because the Voices talk only to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
He got an Irish upper lip from somebody, but chin, earset, jawline, cheekbones, brow ridge are quite similar.

Wish they'd taken the hat off the reconstruction, because you can't really see the forehead or skull shape (bet they don't match up & that's why).

22 posted on 02/25/2013 9:50:29 AM PST by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

One minor correction: Elizabeth II is still very much alive.


23 posted on 02/25/2013 9:51:34 AM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; windcliff; stylecouncilor

“Make me immortal with a....” Yuck! Never mind. That’s Christopher Marlowe anyway.


24 posted on 02/25/2013 10:07:35 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

The resemblance is amazing to be so close after so many generations.


25 posted on 02/25/2013 10:19:46 AM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

Puritanism is/was the opposite of a good thing. Cromwell was a tyrant. And the Pilgrims were not Puritans.


26 posted on 02/25/2013 10:20:10 AM PST by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

I stand corrected. Liz the 1st was the last of the Tudor clan. Liz the 2nd is a Windsor.


27 posted on 02/25/2013 11:54:30 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

You are right about the Plantagenets. I discovered I was a descendant of Thomas Dudley, the first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, who in turn was a descendant of Henry II, a Plantagenet king. Secretary of State John Kerry is also a descendant of Thomas Dudley, a relation I am not exactly proud to admit.

And you are right about the Tudors, easily the most bloody dynasty ever to rule England, although they did succeed in making Great Beitain a dominant European colonial and super power of that age.


28 posted on 02/25/2013 12:07:12 PM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo
Cromwell was a tyrant.

He was in his treatment of the Irish and Roman Catholics. He was not in doing some of the things which needed to be done like executing the tyrant King Charles I.

And the Pilgrims were not Puritans.

Yes they were albeit not in the same sense as later Puritans who behaved like tyrants when they gained power.

Few are the examples of history of people who did not turn into tyrants when they gained power.

George Washington is perhaps the best example. So were the first five presidents who followed him. That is why our constitution was designed with checks and balances to limit the acquisition of power. It is still a new and revolutionary concept far superior to the alternatives proposed by the libtards who would, at best, take us back to the days of feudalism and, at worst, into absolute tyranny.

29 posted on 02/25/2013 12:08:52 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Actually, it was only Elizabeth I which kept the Tudor dynasty from being total failures. The very survival of England was in doubt when she was crowned. That all changed in 1588 with some great support from Sir Francis Drake.

When Elizabeth I was crowned, England was a nation of a mere 2.5 million who had lost all their overseas possessions under the incompetent rule of her father and her sister Mary. It is estimated that 72,000 English were executed under the reign of Henry VIII, roughly 3% of the entire population, mostly for political and petty crimes.

I would suspect that your same Dudley line is a branch of the same family who was terminated with the brutal execution of Lady Jane Grey and her husband by orders of Mary I.

In 20-20 hindsight, it is easy to see why the American Revolution was inevitable with bad blood between the ruling class and those they ruled dating back nearly three centuries before the revolution in the old country.

30 posted on 02/25/2013 12:18:46 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

You are thinking of Guildford Dudley, the husband of Lady Jane Grey. He was beheaded at the age of 19 along with his young wife and his father John Dudley. John was a top minister in the Protestant government of Edward VI. After the young king died, his older sister, the Catholic Mary, was next in line to throne. John Dudley was a fervent Protestant who detested Catholicism. The last thing he wanted another Catholic monarch. He conspired to have Lady Jane Grey, a Protestant granddaughter of one of Henry VIII’s sister marry his son, Guildford and have Lady Jane assume the throne. As Princess Mary was next in line to the throne, and Edward VI’s sister, such a plot had no chance, was quickly put down. After a short reign of just nine days, Mary I put down the plot and became queen. Both Dudleys were executed along with Lady Jane Grey. I am descended from Thomas Dudley, one of their cousins, who became the first of governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony. His daughter, Anne, married another governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, Simon Bradstreet. Anne Dudley Bradstreet has the distinction of being the American poetess. Both John Kerry and I are descended from the Dudley-Winthrop family. John Dudley had a second son, Robert Dudley, who was famous as one of the “Virgin” Queen’s (Elizabeth I) favorites.


31 posted on 02/25/2013 12:44:54 PM PST by Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

Read Josephine Tey’s “A Daughter of Time” for another side on
Richard III’s story...I think that’s the title...great book!


32 posted on 02/25/2013 12:45:57 PM PST by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
...the tyrant King Charles I

Please tell, by what standard can Charles be measured a tyrant but by which Cromwell cannot?

33 posted on 02/25/2013 1:06:26 PM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
...the tyrant King Charles I

Please tell, by what standard can Charles be measured a tyrant but by which Cromwell cannot?

34 posted on 02/25/2013 1:15:25 PM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Adder

The resemblance is so alike that it really looks just like a portrait of the living descendent. It makes one wonder how much “science” went into the recnstruction.


35 posted on 02/25/2013 1:18:45 PM PST by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp

What a weird doubling of the post!


36 posted on 02/25/2013 1:25:31 PM PST by Brass Lamp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp

As Cromwell killed a good many of my ancestors and only by the skin of there teeth did any escape his protestant wrath—I have no love of this Dictator. The castle my people built how has an Englishman living it. Sometimes I have half a mind to evict him. No Richard III has a steely face—I bet he could have been a right basta*d when he had to be. He could kill and not lose any sleep over it. But most of the kings were like that and I believe—still are.


37 posted on 02/25/2013 1:57:10 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Brass Lamp

I’ll take a crack at it.

The logical drive of ideology for Charles and his supporters was towards absolute monarchy like that in France and Spain. This was actually considered modern and the wave of the future at the time. Englishmen whining about their “rights” was antiquated and behind the times. Very old fashioned.

When Cromwell and his guys not only overthrew the king but chopped his lying head off, they demonstrated in the most literal sense possible that the People, or some group of them, or their delegates, rule in England, not a Monarch by the Grace of God. Parliament was always supreme after that. And that tradition of rejection of absolutism is that from which America sprang. There is a line of descent from Cromwell to Washington and Jefferson. Not from Charles to the Founders.

Actually, I think neither Charles nor Cromwell was much of a tyrant at heart. Charles just wanted others to respect and obey him as was his right as King. The trouble was that the political world was changing and Charles refused to adapt. He was a remarkably decent man in his private life, but was not competent to ride the wave of a political tsunami.

(It’s interesting that some of the most decent monarchs - as men - had the greatest tragedies befall them: Nicholas II, Charles I, George V and Louis XVI. Meanwhile lots of ahole kings who deserved horrible fates lived and died in enjoyment of their pleasures.)

When things started going badly for Charles he comprehensively and repeatedly demonstrated that he simply could NOT be trusted to keep his word. Not because he was a lying deceiving SOB, but because he quite honestly viewed it as his Duty to break his word when it would help to reinstate his proper position in the realm. Since none of his more effective opponents could trust him to keep his word, they had no real alternative but to take him out of the picture, since if he came back to power and did not keep his word with regard to amnesty and such, they would all be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Cromwell also desmonstrated little of the hunger for absolute power shown by Napoleon, Hitler and other tyrants. He crushed revolts and struggled to establish a legitimate basis for power other than the King. He failed, of course, and reverted to military despotism as a last resort. But he was remarkably mild as tyrants go, repeatedly trying to work with the leading men of the realm to establish a new and better system of governance instead of just imposing his will.


38 posted on 02/25/2013 2:10:17 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; SunkenCiv

Looks more like a young Bono.

39 posted on 02/25/2013 2:24:04 PM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro
Young Bono? Not quite!


40 posted on 02/25/2013 2:26:40 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: martin_fierro

He may be a descendent of his............nephews.........


41 posted on 02/25/2013 2:40:26 PM PST by Red Badger (Lincoln freed the slaves. Obama just got them ALL back......................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; Brass Lamp
Excellent and generally balanced, Sherman. Although I think you cut Charles I a little too much slack. He was also the guy who unleashed Archbishop Ladd to imprison, cut off the ears or even execute recalcitrant preachers of Puritanism.

The final straw which led to his execution was the discovery of a plot to bring in French armies and retake his throne by force even though Cromwell was initially quite willing to let him continue to reign as king with limited and defined powers.

BTW, Ladd's own experience with losing his office and his head via Bill of Attainder was one of the reasons we outlawed Bills of Attainder, so even the descendants of Cromwell had remorse over the way Ladd was taken down.

42 posted on 02/25/2013 2:50:10 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger; mickie; flaglady47
I don't know when I've enjoyed a thread as much as this one.

Many thanks to the freeper history brains who have written all the engrossing narratives upthread. I devoured every word.

We never learned all this detail in school, did we....and to be filled in by our resident freeper intelligentsia is absolutely awesome and fulfilling.

Leni

43 posted on 02/25/2013 3:06:42 PM PST by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

We seen the last of Good King Richard
Ring out the past his name lives on
Roll out the bones and raise up your pitcher
Raise up your glass to Good King John


44 posted on 02/25/2013 3:08:24 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines
Thank you for adding those details.

Father Dudley, of course, deserved to lose his head under the standards of the time. Guildford probably did not. Lady Jane Grey most certainly did not. She was only 16 and had to be persuaded not only to marry Dudley but to accept the throne for those fateful nine days. Remember that the people involved were not seen as plotters but as top ministers and regents to the late young King Edward and, as such, the people whom the late king (and probably Henry VIII as well) would have trusted to choose his successor.

Neither Mary, as the daughter of a queen which Henry divorced and a follower of a religion which Henry expelled from England, nor Elizabeth, as the daughter of a queen which Henry executed, were seen by many as the proper successors.

The cowardly council basically left young Lady Jane Grey and Guildford to twist in the wind after pledging to support them once Mary made her triumphant entry into London and claimed the throne.

She could have listened to the cooler heads in her council who urged her to pardon Lady Jane and Guildford as it was clear they posed no opposition. Instead, she chose to behead her cousins and unleash her bloody reign of terror which brought England to the brink of extinction and caused few to mourn her passing five years later.

Thanks also to your reference to the young Robert Dudley as a favorite of Elizabeth I. The "virgin queen" may have had several other young men who regularly serviced her plus, of course, her old favorite Sir Walter Raleigh. But whether it actually crossed the line of close male friendship into sexual services remains a mystery for the ages.

I tend to think that Elizabeth I was a great English patriot who reached the conclusion that she could only begin to restore England to greatness in her lifetime by avoiding marriage to any of the factions which had contented for power before she became queen. It is a romantic notion, perhaps, but I also tend to think it to be the most likely explanation of why she never married despite having plenty of suitors from whom to choose.

45 posted on 02/25/2013 3:14:36 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal; All
Agreed!

Thank you all . . . even if I disagree with some of you.

46 posted on 02/25/2013 3:17:20 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

One minor correction: Elizabeth II is still very much alive.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I have seen rumors that what everyone thinks is Elizabeth 2 is actually an advanced robot designed and employed by those cut ups over at Buckingham Palace to make Charles believe he will never be king.

47 posted on 02/25/2013 3:28:18 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Trapped Behind Enemy Lines

One minor correction: Elizabeth II is still very much alive.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I have seen rumors that what everyone thinks is Elizabeth 2 is actually an advanced robot designed and employed by those cut ups over at Buckingham Palace to make Charles believe he will never be king.

48 posted on 02/25/2013 3:28:25 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Robwin

Oh, fiddles. A 2x. Sigh!


49 posted on 02/25/2013 3:29:44 PM PST by Robwin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
His whole life Charley convinced himself that everything he did was Right, because it was his kingly Duty. He ruled by divine right, therefore by definition it was his Duty to Rule. His most loyal and competent servant, Tom Wentworth, was condemned to death by Act of Attainder. He had committed no crime, in the strict sense of the term, since he was doing the King's will and the King was above the law. But the Opposition knew that Tom had to go or he'd eventually kill them all. They played for keeps back then.

Turns out the King had to assent to Tom's execution. So Charley convinced himself it was his Duty to toss this utterly loyal servant under the bus to be beheaded. Despite his earlier solemn vow not to do so.

He later did the same with Laud, who pretty much deserved it on some scale, since he had been the primary proponent of forcing bishops on the Scots, which eventually precipitated the crash of the Stuart cart.

Charley was duplicitous, but he wasn't very good at it. He wanted to be honest and straightforward, but kept getting himself into positions where he believed he was justified to deceive those he dickered with. But he just didn't really fool anybody.

Machiavelli would have been disgusted by him. He was sort of the anti-Prince, a ruler who frittered away his authority by alienating his supporters instead of masterfully deceiving everybody till he could grab absolute power.

50 posted on 02/25/2013 5:52:14 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson