Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,995 other followers
So were they separated at birth or not? :D
Mashup pic is my crude photoshop work. LOL!
February 5, 2013
Categories: Richard III . Tags:ancestry, candid shots, genetics, Leicester, poll, Richard Armitage, Richard III, separated at birth? . Author: RAFrenzy
I hope his agent sees this comparison and sends it out to producers as he pitches the film. He’s closer to RIII than most other actors :D
There’s a heckuva resemblance between them IMHO. It’s almost eerie. Add in S3 Guy hair and imagine RA in period costume and Bob’s your uncle! ;)
Knowing how capricious casting directors can be–but surely they wouldn’t try to cast anyone else in the role. Let’s see–Brad Pitt as Richard III? (Oh, please!) Matthew McConaughey as Richard III? (Even worse!) Richard Armitage? Be still my heart!
It’s a bit spooky isn’t it? Especially as he was also named after Richard lll and he and his dad have an interest in him. Now if we could just get that movie underway with RA playing the lead, all would be complete!
As close as you can get indeed! RIII chin more prominent, eyebrows a different shape – nitpicking. RA IS RIII :D
I think the reconstructed Richard looks more like Lucie Griffiths to tell you the truth, especially the chin!
Amazing! I would really like to hear RA check in on this whole thing Just a statment “Isn’t this cool” or something, . He can say it fumblingly if he wants to – just say something. Am I out of line?
Maybe they should check a DNA sample from RA while they still have the slides on the microscope!
I remember seeing a ‘who do you think you are’ where someone ( a rugby player?)found kings in his lineage. The researcher said it isn’t uncommon but most of us can’t trace it- especially where children have been illegitimate.
The resemblance is almost uncanny!! No-one could be as perfect for the role IMHO. I too would love to hear what “our” Richard thinks. :D
Personally I think that the people who made the Richard III statue had RA in mind. How do they know he had a pointy nose from a skeleton??? Call me a cynic.
I TOTALLY agree, Beverly. Earlier today I had this tingling up my spine and thought, “Hmmm. I think Lin Foxhall is an RA fan.” LOL!
No way! Are you saying everyone on this project put their reputations and careers on the line so RA could star in “The Sunne in Splendour”? The reconstruction of the face is the most amazing thing about this whole project. Maybe I watch too much crime TV where they do this all the time to identify victims, but I am a believer. That is Richard 3’s face as he lived all those centuries ago, not a RA wannabe,
Louie, I love to tease, but honestly, it wouldn’t shock me if we found out she is. LOL!
He does have a way about him and has fans in the most unexpected places. It seems like so much effort and money to selll a script for a movie. We are talking about a King of England! Time will tell and we will never really know if Lin changed R3’s face till we get to heaven and see him for ourselves (LOL)
It don’t think it’s a conspiracy, just maybe some subconscious similarities happening.
Either way you can count on me to buy a ticket to the movie!
I agree with Beverly and RAFrenzy…. The comment about Lucy was hilarious!
Thought you might all be interested in what a hist.fict author from the UK thinks about the discovery. http://julesfrusher.com/2013/02/05/richard-iii-reactions-and-my-reactions-to-them-a-minor-rant/
You found the perfect picture to illustrate your point! There was also a comment somewhere that Daniel Day Lewis also resembles the likeness.
“The face was reconstructed from detailed scans of the skull by Caroline Wilkinson, professor of craniofacial identification at Dundee University, who has worked on many modern forensic cases. She did the initial work blind, without consulting contemporary descriptions or images. The skin colour and texture, eyes and hair were then added by Janice Aitken, of the university’s art college.”
IMHO there was no bias in the cranio-facial reconstruction work done by the two Drs. (No bias proRichardArmitage or proDDL or proAlexanderVlahos)
I watched the special last night, and I completely agree that there was no bias. However, I think it’s important to note that without the information of how this was done, given Philippa Langley’s favor of Richard Armitage and then seeing the reconstructed face’s eerie resemblance to him, it was a fair conclusion.
Phylly, I have several more I could have used. Some of his pictures from Spooks really looked like the king, but the blue cast to the screencaps spoiled the effect, and I didn’t have time to mess with taking out the blue. I’m not an old hand at that. I’m afraid to spend much time with photoshop as I have a known propensity for addiction. :D
Here’s one of the photos that reminds me of R3
They is a ressemblance between them. I hope that Richard will pays in the “Richard III” movie. ;-)
More from Dr.Caroline Wilinson:
“The shape of the face had to be based entirely on the scans.
It may seem impossible to build someone’s cheeks, nose, and eyebrows from a piece of bone. But there are lots of clues, she says. Like teeth.
“The width of the mouth can be determined exactly by the position of the teeth. The little bump on the outer orbit is where the outer corner of the eye is. We can use these anatomical standards to help us rebuild the face.”
The nose used to be one of the toughest features to recreate because it’s made of cartilage. But recent research has unearthed a formula that allows one to predict what the soft nose would look like from the underlying bone, she says.
Even the shape of the brow can be guessed at, although the number of lines on someone’s forehead will not be apparent.
The ears are the hardest thing to get right. All that can be deduced from the skull is whether the person has earlobes and where they sit on the side of the head.
About 70% of the facial surface should have less than 2mm of error, Wilkinson says.
One area where they are using guesswork is in the amount of flesh on a 15th Century face.
“We use average tissue depth (from today) but he may have been substantially thinner or fatter than contemporary faces.”
Wilkinson says she was surprised by how the reconstruction looked. “To have a face developed so similar to the portraits was kind of a surprise.”
Richard appears a much younger 32-year-old than the one in the portraits. Facial reconstructions often look young, Wilkinson says. “We can’t really add any age creasing as we don’t know where to put them.” […]
[T]here can be a danger of giving the subject noble or striking features, says Matthew Skinner, lecturer in anthropology at University College London. […] there will always be an element of subjectivity. “Facial expression is such an important part of how people look. And in the case of reconstruction you have to pick one.”
I think Richard Armitage will be a fine Richard III, but I can not help wishing that the role could be taken by Christian Bale, who besides being closer to Richards age (at death) also is one of the most talented and versatile actors England has produced. If Charles the Bold happens to be in the RIII film (Richard being fugitive in Burgundy for the 2nd time) I would suggest the part goes to actor Edward Bennett RSC and a fabulous understudy Hamlet at the Novello, when David Tennant had hurt his back), who not only is very talented, but also looks amazingly like the Burgundian Duke.
TrackBack Identifier URI
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
RSS - Posts
Go ahead and click the P
You know you want to
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.