There will be a chance for Brits to check the count - https://www.theguardian.com/culture...return-to-britain-for-first-time-in-900-years
I was going to post that but was distracted.There will be a chance for Brits to check the count - https://www.theguardian.com/culture...return-to-britain-for-first-time-in-900-years
If it was made in Britain, as I believe is the current understanding, I not sure why that doesn't count as 'returning'."Return" to Britain? If it hasn't been there for 900 years, can it really be "returned"?
Ah, yes, that makes sense. I know it so well, but I still forget that it wasn't made in Bayeux. Thanks.If it was made in Britain, as I believe is the current understanding, I not sure why that doesn't count as 'returning'.
It says "Video unavailable" and has a link to watch on YouTube. I don't want to click the link to watch it on YouTube without knowing what it is, because doing so will affect my carefully maintained algorithm in ways I can't predict. That's all.Does YouTube not work for you?
Depicted upon. I am not aware of any current research regarding penile contact, frottage or accidental, with the cloth. And that would probably be more of a law enforcement matter, as opposed to historical.Can I clarify. Is the OP asking about depicted in or physically in contact with?
penile contact, frottage or accidental, with the cloth.
Surprisingly that is not a theory that has been advanced so far.Maybe that is what happened to the shroud of Turin? has anyone thought of that?
Strange. It's usually a good explanation for stains on a cloth. Or so my experience as a mother of teenage boys tells me.Surprisingly that is not a theory that has been advanced so far.
Perhaps you should bring it up in the Shroud thread?Strange. It's usually a good explanation for stains on a cloth. Or so my experience as a mother of teenage boys tells me.
It would help to explain the hand placement?Perhaps you should bring it up in the Shroud thread?
OK........It would help to explain the hand placement?