Leicester
Leicester
Since then I have researched the disease and spoken to a few people about it. It turns out that it could be a simple curvature of the spine that would hardly be noticed by anyone. The body I am told would have been well muscled, so perhaps the medieval way for an upper class man to deal with it would have been rigorous exercise.
My initial reaction was also informed a bit by the thought that Richard and Anne were stripped to the waist for the anointing at the coronation, and nobody whispered anything as being unusual. Annette Carson suggests that the scoliosis may have been slightly apparent then and that some preset, Margaret Beaufort for example, could have told her son, who then got his people to exaggerate it into a major deformity in their tales. Anything to cast ignominy of the rightful king he had replaced!
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that it is looking as if we have found King Ricard's body. Overwhelmed is the word I think.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Re: Leicester
Overwhelming is certainly the word. I was following the progress reports about the dig with fascination but no real expectation. I'd thought it entirely possible they might recover some remains - but probably remains from a number of people, which would make attribution extraordinarily difficult. To get an almost complete skeleton displaying battle trauma in virtual isolation exactly where the burial site was supposed to be is probably beyond anyone's wildest hope. It's almost a perfect storm. If there'd just been a head injury, I'd still be very sceptical. But that combined with the arrow head and the scoliosis means that, if the DNA testing casts doubts on the identity of the remains, we have an even bigger mystery. What's a doppelganger doing in this very specific burial place? (Cue conspiracy theories about Richard escaping and retiring in anonymity on the continent just as, I'm sure, Edward II and Christopher Marlowe did not!)
The one annoyance about the whole thing has been some of the media coverage, more the sub-editing than the articles themselves. Of course "hunchback" makes an catchy headline, but it's galling when the academics went out of their way to stress that scoliosis is *not* kyphosis.
I caught the last 5 minutes of the press conference as it was live-streamed by the BBC and found it suddenly and unexpectedly moving.
Jonathan
________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To: RichardIIISociety forum <>
Sent: Thursday, 13 September 2012, 9:10
Subject: Leicester
I wholeheartedly apologise for my post about scoliosis yesterday. It was a bit of a knee jerk reaction, maybe coming out of the shock that we could have found the king's body. And I was going on the ladt I know who has an extreme case.
Since then I have researched the disease and spoken to a few people about it. It turns out that it could be a simple curvature of the spine that would hardly be noticed by anyone. The body I am told would have been well muscled, so perhaps the medieval way for an upper class man to deal with it would have been rigorous exercise.
My initial reaction was also informed a bit by the thought that Richard and Anne were stripped to the waist for the anointing at the coronation, and nobody whispered anything as being unusual. Annette Carson suggests that the scoliosis may have been slightly apparent then and that some preset, Margaret Beaufort for example, could have told her son, who then got his people to exaggerate it into a major deformity in their tales. Anything to cast ignominy of the rightful king he had replaced!
I am still trying to get my head around the fact that it is looking as if we have found King Ricard's body. Overwhelmed is the word I think.
Paul
Richard Liveth Yet!
Leicester
From Wikipedia....not too shabby!
Leicester is a city and unitary authority area in the East Midlands of England, and the county town of Leicestershire. The city lies on the River Soar and at the edge of the National Forest.
In the 2011 census, the population of the Leicester unitary authority was 330,000, the highest in the region, whilst 509,000 people lived in the wider Leicester Urban Area,[2] making Leicester the tenth largest city in the United Kingdom and England's eleventh largest urban area. It has the second largest urban area in the East Midlands region. Eurostat's Larger Urban Zone listed the population of Leicester LUZ at 806,100 people as of 2009. According to the 2011 census Leicester had the largest proportion of people aged 19-and-under in the East Midlands with 27 per cent.
"Unlike almost every other city in the UK, Leicester has retained a remarkable record of its past in buildings that still stand today".[3] Ancient Roman pavements and baths remain in Leicester from its early settlement as Ratae Corieltauvorum, a Roman military outpost in a region inhabited by the Celtic Corieltauvi tribe. Following the demise of Roman society the early medieval Ratae Corieltauvorum is shrouded in obscurity, but when the settlement was captured by the Danes it became one of five fortified towns important to the Danelaw. The name "Leicester" is thought to derive from the words castra of the "Ligore", meaning camp of the dwellers on the (river) Legro.[4] Leicester appears in the Domesday Book as "Ledecestre". Leicester continued to grow throughout the Early Modern period as a market town, although it was the Industrial Revolution that facilitated a process of rapid unplanned urbanisation in the area.
A newly constructed rail and canal network routed through the area stimulated industrial growth in the 19th century, and Leicester became a major economic centre with a variety of manufacturers engaged in engineering, shoemaking and hosiery production. The economic success of these industries, and businesses ancillary to them, resulted in significant urban expansion into the surrounding countryside. Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England, it was the centre of the bishopric from around 670, endowing it with city status. However, it lost city status in the 11th century during a time of struggle between the church and the aristocracy. The boundaries of Leicester were extended several times in the 19th and 20th centuries; it became a county borough in 1889, and was re-granted city status in 1919.
Today, Leicester is located on the Midland Main Line and close to the M1 motorway. The city has the highest ethnic minority population in the United Kingdom in terms of its size, particularly of South Asian origin, a product of immigration to the United Kingdom since the Second World War. To cater for the South Asian community, there are many Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and other places of worship and the Melton Road district serves as a focus, containing a large number of Asian restaurants and other small businesses. Leicester is a centre for higher education, with both the University of Leicester and De Montfort University being based in the city.
On 20 June 2013, Leicester was announced as one of four shortlisted cities for the second UK City of Culture award.[5] Kingston upon Hull was announced as the winner on 20 November.[
Leicester
on King Richard's Road in Leicester! On arrival I asked how far Bosworth
was, and he didn't know, had to look it up. I nagged him so much that as
soon as he had time off his work he drove me out to the site, which at
the time was a small plaque on a stick in the middle of a field south
west of Ambien Farm. It was raining, but I got out the car and walked
into the field and burst into tears!
This was in 1959. I went to work briefly in Leicester in 1993 and hardly
recognised the place, with large parts looking like a suburb of Mumbai,
due to massive immigration from the Indian sub continent and Uganda.
King Richard's name was still everywhere though.
Paul
--
Richard Liveth Yet!
Richard's statue
Re: Richard's statue
Re: Richard's statue
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207 Sandra =^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
Re: Richard's statue
I can still remember the statue outside Croydon Town Hall dedicated to the dead of World War 1. It was of a seated woman, baby in arms, toddler at her knees with her arm outstretched as she screwed up in her hand the telegraph/letter informing her of her loved one's death. I could never walk past that statue without stopping and looking up at it....Probably people hurrying by thought I was some kind of nutter :0)
Re: Leicester
Re: Richard's statue
On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:40 AM, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:
Oh I love this statue too,,,massively. I always prefer art in the form where I can understand what it is supposed to represent...I actually get it...rather than for example the statue at Middleham which leaves me thinking 'yeah right but what does it mean?'..
I can still remember the statue outside Croydon Town Hall dedicated to the dead of World War 1. It was of a seated woman, baby in arms, toddler at her knees with her arm outstretched as she screwed up in her hand the telegraph/letter informing her of her loved one's death. I could never walk past that statue without stopping and looking up at it....Probably people hurrying by thought I was some kind of nutter :0)
Re: Richard's statue
On Friday, 27 June 2014, 13:53, "Pamela Bain pbain@... []" <> wrote:
Not me, you were touched by the sight, and understood.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 7:40 AM, "eileenbates147@... []" <> wrote:
Oh I love this statue too,,,massively. I always prefer art in the form where I can understand what it is supposed to represent...I actually get it...rather than for example the statue at Middleham which leaves me thinking 'yeah right but what does it mean?'..
I can still remember the statue outside Croydon Town Hall dedicated to the dead of World War 1. It was of a seated woman, baby in arms, toddler at her knees with her arm outstretched as she screwed up in her hand the telegraph/letter informing her of her loved one's death. I could never walk past that statue without stopping and looking up at it....Probably people hurrying by thought I was some kind of nutter :0)
Re: Richard's statue
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard’s grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard's grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
I’m in! Guess I’d better start saving shekels . . . J
Here’s an idea . . . start thinking about *when* and *where* we might go . . . featuring at least some time in London – it would be great fun just planning the trip. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Oh what a grand idea!
On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard’s grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
I'm in! Guess I'd better start saving shekels . . . J
Here's an idea . . . start thinking about *when* and *where* we might go . . . featuring at least some time in London it would be great fun just planning the trip. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Oh what a grand idea!
On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard's grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
OK, you start . . . what Ricardian sites would you want to visit and why? Would it be possible to set up a tour which sort of goes chronologically through momentous events in Richard’s life, or would that require too much retracing of one’s route? I think it might be possible to design a sort of a loop starting at Fotheringhay and going on from there.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:39 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Absolutely.....
On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
I’m in! Guess I’d better start saving shekels . . . J
Here’s an idea . . . start thinking about *when* and *where* we might go . . . featuring at least some time in London – it would be great fun just planning the trip. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Oh what a grand idea!
On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard’s grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:57 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
OK, you start . . . what Ricardian sites would you want to visit and why? Would it be possible to set up a tour which sort of goes chronologically through momentous events in Richard's life, or would that require too much retracing of one's route? I think it might be possible to design a sort of a loop starting at Fotheringhay and going on from there.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:39 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Absolutely.....
On Jun 27, 2014, at 9:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
I'm in! Guess I'd better start saving shekels . . . J
Here's an idea . . . start thinking about *when* and *where* we might go . . . featuring at least some time in London it would be great fun just planning the trip. J
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:13 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Oh what a grand idea!
On Jun 27, 2014, at 8:28 AM, "Johanne Tournier
jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)
And btw, you suggested joining our resources for a couple month tour of Britain (focusing on the Ricardian trail, I presume). Yes! How about heading over to, say, Oxford U. for one of those great Summer courses on English history and then doing the tour in the Fall?? We could arrange to be at Bosworth in August! I would just *die* for the opportunity, and then lay white roses on Richard's grave . . .
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:47 AM
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard's statue
Nice, and Paul what a lovely story. Sorry the Bosworth Field had undergone a conversion.
On Jun 27, 2014, at 2:15 AM, "'SandraMachin'
sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
I'm posting this because it shows Richard's statue, cleaned and polished, with a new full-length sword. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-28034207
Sandra
=^..^=
Re: Richard's statue
Johanne wrote :
"Hear, hear! (or here, here! Whatever.)"
Carol responds:
It's "Hear, hear!" meaning "Listen to what the speaker is saying!" I always think of Tolkien's hobbits, "who kept repeating ['hear, hear!'] in chorus, seemingly reluctant to follow their own advice."
Carol
Re: Richard's statue
---In , <jltournier60@...> wrote :
OK, you start . . . what Ricardian sites would you want to visit and why? Would it be possible to set up a tour which sort of goes chronologically through momentous events in Richard's life, or would that require too much retracing of one's route? I think it might be possible to design a sort of a loop starting at Fotheringhay and going on from there.
Carol responds:
I will be in England from August 4 through 14 (effectively the 5th through 13th since the 4th and 14th are travel days). I just received the York portion of our itinerary:
"Monday, August 11, 2014
"Take the train from Leicester to York, arriving around 10:30. You will be met at the station, taken to the hotel, where you can drop your bags. The rest of the day will take you to Castle Howard and Rievaulx Abbey, with a stop at Sheriff Hutton on your return to York.
"Tuesday, August 12, 2014
"You will be picked up at your hotel for a full day. You will visit the battle field at Towton Moor, which was the site of the bloodiest battle during the War of the Roses; 28,000 men lost their lives. From there, you will go to Middleham via a scenic Yorkshire Dales drive, and then visit Barnard Castle prior to your return to York.
"Wednesday, August 13, 2014
"It would be arranged for you to leave your bags at the hotel, and then do a half day walking tour of York itself around 10:00, with a return to the hotel around 2:00 or 2:30 giving you enough time to catch a train to Manchester Airport with an arrival there around 5:30 or 6:00."
We will also obviously be visiting Leicester (and Bosworth) as well as London. I'm letting the travel agent do the work after telling her the specific places I'd like to see and providing her with some idea of their Richard III connections. Can't see everything in that limited time, of course!
Carol
Re: Richard's statue
Oh that sounds lovely! Johanne, I think we should save this itinerary!
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 11:58 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Richard's statue
---In , <jltournier60@...> wrote :
OK, you start . . . what Ricardian sites would you want to visit and why? Would it be possible to set up a tour which sort of goes chronologically through momentous events in Richard's life, or would that require too much retracing of one's route? I think it might be possible to design a sort of a loop starting at Fotheringhay and going on from there.
Carol responds:
I will be in England from August 4 through 14 (effectively the 5th through 13th since the 4th and 14th are travel days). I just received the York portion of our itinerary:
"Monday, August 11, 2014
"Take the train from Leicester to York, arriving around 10:30. You will be met at the station, taken to the hotel, where you can drop your bags. The rest of the day will take you to Castle Howard and Rievaulx Abbey, with a stop at Sheriff Hutton on your return to York.
"Tuesday, August 12, 2014
"You will be picked up at your hotel for a full day. You will visit the battle field at Towton Moor, which was the site of the bloodiest battle during the War of the Roses; 28,000 men lost their lives. From there, you will go to Middleham via a scenic Yorkshire Dales drive, and then visit Barnard Castle prior to your return to York.
"Wednesday, August 13, 2014
"It would be arranged for you to leave your bags at the hotel, and then do a half day walking tour of York itself around 10:00, with a return to the hotel around 2:00 or 2:30 giving you enough time to catch a train to Manchester Airport with an arrival there around 5:30 or 6:00."
We will also obviously be visiting Leicester (and Bosworth) as well as London. I'm letting the travel agent do the work after telling her the specific places I'd like to see and providing her with some idea of their Richard III connections. Can't see everything in that limited time, of course!
Carol
Re: Leicester
Leicester is where Richard's body was brought after death, and it has a statue of him (which is a fairly pleasing statue - certainly better than the one at Middleham) which would have presumably looked very impressive on advertising banners.
I simply don't see why Richard is being buried in a place that pretty much everyone has stated he would not have chosen himself. He may well be buried there, and Leicester might be trying to turn itself into Richard Central, but he himself had virtually nothing to do with the place. Whatever led to the decision, it wasn't Richard himself and his life that was borne in mind.
But I have a great deal of equanimity about it. It may happen but it will never be right, whatever the ceremonies, the tomb, the light striking the incised cross, the stained glass and ambient lighting - those things are mere side details. Hey ho.
Re: Leicester
Opinions vary and no documented evidence exists of where Richard would want to have been buried beyond planned the colleges in Middleham and York which may have been for religious purposes.
Leicester was very aggressive in preparing for the king, including the museum and the proposed burial structure at St. Martin's. Leicester made a good case in court and in public along with the ULAS permit.
Consider the convenience of the historical and proposed locations; everything is within a few blocks of each other, Richard Central, indeed.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as it is said.
York could, however, plan something around the investiture of Richard's son as Prince of Wales, if interested.
-----Original Message-----
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Jun 27, 2014 6:35 pm
Subject: Re: Leicester
<...Leicester is where Richard's body was brought after death, and it has a statue of him (which is a fairly pleasing statue - certainly better than the one at Middleham) which would have presumably looked very impressive on advertising banners.
I simply don't see why Richard is being buried in a place that pretty much everyone has stated he would not have chosen himself. He may well be buried there, and Leicester might be trying to turn itself into Richard Central, but he himself had virtually nothing to do with the place. Whatever led to the decision, it wasn't Richard himself and his life that was borne in mind.
But I have a great deal of equanimity about it. It may happen but it will never be right, whatever the ceremonies, the tomb, the light striking the incised cross, the stained glass and ambient lighting - those things are mere side details. Hey ho.>
Re: Leicester
Who will pay the piper I wonder?...
On Friday, 27 June 2014, 19:55, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
I don't have favour for banners of statues over banners of boars simply because of their location. And if York had banners I didn't like, I would certainly say so - I didn't see any of the banners in question anyway..... :)
Leicester is where Richard's body was brought after death, and it has a statue of him (which is a fairly pleasing statue - certainly better than the one at Middleham) which would have presumably looked very impressive on advertising banners.
I simply don't see why Richard is being buried in a place that pretty much everyone has stated he would not have chosen himself. He may well be buried there, and Leicester might be trying to turn itself into Richard Central, but he himself had virtually nothing to do with the place. Whatever led to the decision, it wasn't Richard himself and his life that was borne in mind.
But I have a great deal of equanimity about it. It may happen but it will never be right, whatever the ceremonies, the tomb, the light striking the incised cross, the stained glass and ambient lighting - those things are mere side details. Hey ho.
Re: Leicester
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Forgetting any machinations that may or may not have gone on with the cathedral or university authorities, Leicester does have an extremely valid claim for the reburial of Richard's body.
I feel sure you must have seen the many roadside shrines to people who have been killed in motor accidents. I wouldn't do it myself, but such things do matter to people.
Even if you do see treachery at the root of the decision to bury Richard in Leicester, it may well be the right thing to do for reasons of history.
The argument is not without reason on both sides.
Jess
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 12:16, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:
Alison, I respect your view, of course, but I do want to ask you, and Collyngbourne, why you don't think that where a person died, or was killed, especially if that was the place where they decided to fight for their country is not important?
Forgetting any machinations that may or may not have gone on with the cathedral or university authorities, Leicester does have an extremely valid claim for the reburial of Richard's body.
I feel sure you must have seen the many roadside shrines to people who have been killed in motor accidents. I wouldn't do it myself, but such things do matter to people.
Even if you do see treachery at the root of the decision to bury Richard in Leicester, it may well be the right thing to do for reasons of history.
The argument is not without reason on both sides.
Jess
From: mailto:
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Absolutely, Hilary.
More lovely places for us to visit.
x Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 11:39:39 AM
Could there not be a win win with all this (I was as much for York as anyone else) - Leicester can celebrate where Richard died (if one does celebrate that) and York(shire) can celebrate where he lived? Big tourist trade there methinks and a good tourist route. H
On Thursday, 3 July 2014, 12:16, "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <> wrote:
Alison, I respect your view, of course, but I do want to ask you, and Collyngbourne, why you don't think that where a person died, or was killed, especially if that was the place where they decided to fight for their country is not important?
Forgetting any machinations that may or may not have gone on with the cathedral or university authorities, Leicester does have an extremely valid claim for the reburial of Richard's body.
I feel sure you must have seen the many roadside shrines to people who have been killed in motor accidents. I wouldn't do it myself, but such things do matter to people.
Even if you do see treachery at the root of the decision to bury Richard in Leicester, it may well be the right thing to do for reasons of history.
The argument is not without reason on both sides.
Jess
From: mailto:
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have
done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being
taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be
that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Jonathan
From: "Janjovian janjovian@... []" <>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 12:16
Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
Alison, I respect your view, of course, but I do want to ask you, and Collyngbourne, why you don't think that where a person died, or was killed, especially if that was the place where they decided to fight for their country is not important?
Forgetting any machinations that may or may not have gone on with the cathedral or university authorities, Leicester does have an extremely valid claim for the reburial of Richard's body.
I feel sure you must have seen the many roadside shrines to people who have been killed in motor accidents. I wouldn't do it myself, but such things do matter to people.
Even if you do see treachery at the root of the decision to bury Richard in Leicester, it may well be the right thing to do for reasons of history.
The argument is not without reason on both sides.
Jess
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 03 July 2014 12:50
To:
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Leicester
I think it's a dead argument, unfortunately, Jess, and no one's going to shift their position, so it's probably safer just moving on. I was a bit surprised by Alison's words, though - "I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!" - because they seem both loaded and deliberately ambiguous. I'm not sure what's intended: criticism or prophecy? I don't know in what sense it's a Shakespearean tragedy, and no one here has nailed any flag to any mast for the simple reason that nothing we have said, done or thought has had any bearing on the outcome.
Jonathan
From:
"Janjovian janjovian@... []" <
>
To: " "
< >
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 12:16
Subject: RE: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Leicester
Alison,
I respect your view, of course, but I do want to ask you, and Collyngbourne,
why you don't think that where a person died, or was killed, especially if that
was the place where they decided to fight for their country is not important?
Forgetting any machinations that may or may not have gone on with the cathedral
or university authorities, Leicester does have
an extremely valid claim for the reburial of Richard's body.
I feel sure you must have seen the many roadside shrines to people who have
been killed in motor accidents. I wouldn't do it myself, but such things do
matter to people.
Even if you do see treachery at the root of the decision to bury Richard in
Leicester , it may well be the right thing to do for
reasons of history.
The argument is not without reason on both sides.
Jess
From: Alison Shiels
alisonshiels@... []
Sent: 03/07/2014 08:02
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It
was not so much that " York
didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who
"commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in
Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the
dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster
was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up
the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go
ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To
my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or
university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of
England .
Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa
had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor ,
he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester
basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains
MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented
the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
" Leicester has been very aggressive"
- yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say
"He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private
interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard
spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like
York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being
taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to
be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north
- and this is being disseminated now in education packs from
leicester University .
This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
But to answer the main point about "where he died" - there are such things as wayside shrines to tragic vehicular deaths but this is not where these people are buried. They were buried in places that held some meaning to their life, not their death.
Richard may have fought a battle in the midlands - and risked dying in the field of course - but it does not follow that because he died in battle there, that his remains should be buried there. Many renowned soldiers and nobles and kings were returned for burial in a place significant to them or their position (eg Kings to national shrines).
Richard has no personal connection to Leicester, other than his death nearby. To put it brutally, his unknowing corpse may have a connection to Leicester but Richard himself does not. And to honour the man, you don't honour his horrific death but the good of his life - which was not in the East Midlands (other than the accident of his birth).
Re: Leicester
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 16:52
Subject: Re: Leicester
For one, there should be no "forgetting of the machinations" - what has brought this situation about is undemocratic, with a clear lack of transparency and accountability, on the part of local bodies and authorities, rather than the public and national interest.
But to answer the main point about "where he died" - there are such things as wayside shrines to tragic vehicular deaths but this is not where these people are buried. They were buried in places that held some meaning to their life, not their death.
Richard may have fought a battle in the midlands - and risked dying in the field of course - but it does not follow that because he died in battle there, that his remains should be buried there. Many renowned soldiers and nobles and kings were returned for burial in a place significant to them or their position (eg Kings to national shrines).
Richard has no personal connection to Leicester, other than his death nearby. To put it b rutally, his unknowing corpse may have a connection to Leicester but Richard himself does not. And to honour the man, you don't honour his horrific death but the good of his life - which was not in the East Midlands (other than the accident of his birth).
Re: Leicester
I cannot support your statement enough, Pamela.
This was indeed the case, and we should not try to rewrite history, but to follow the customs of those times as closely as possible.
Also, Collyngbourn why is it an accident of birth that Richard was born in the East Midlands?
He buried many members of bis family there and seems to have had affection for the place.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Pamela Furmidge pamela.furmidge@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:58:00 PM
I think you are misreading the situation immediately after Richard's death. According to the victor, Henry VII, Richard was not a king who died fighting for his crown, but a usurper, a traitor fighting his rightful king, Henry. Thus his burial reflected that - a grave in a religious establishment in the town from which he had set forth at the head of his army only a few days previously. Richard would have known the risks to him in battle and must have been aware of his likely fate if he were killed. Richard would not have expected the wishes in his will to be carried out nor an elaborate funeral. He would have understood that his remains would not have been returned for burial in a place significant to him or his position, as you put it.
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 3 July 2014, 16:52
Subject: Re: Leicester
For one, there should be no "forgetting of the machinations" - what has brought this situation about is undemocratic, with a clear lack of transparency and accountability, on the part of local bodies and authorities, rather than the public and national interest.
But to answer the main point about "where he died" - there are such things as wayside shrines to tragic vehicular deaths but this is not where these people are buried. They were buried in places that held some meaning to their life, not their death.
Richard may have fought a battle in the midlands - and risked dying in the field of course - but it does not follow that because he died in battle there, that his remains should be buried there. Many renowned soldiers and nobles and kings were returned for burial in a place significant to them or their position (eg Kings to national shrines).
Richard has no personal connection to Leicester, other than his death nearby. To put it b
rutally, his unknowing corpse may have a connection to Leicester but Richard himself does not. And to honour the man, you don't honour his horrific death but the good of his life - which was not in the East Midlands (other than the accident of his birth).
Re: Leicester
we cannot know what Richard perhaps considered would happen to his body if he died on the battlefield. We do know what did happen and that it was deliberately disrespectful and intentional to keep Richard from public access - other nobles' bodies were taken to their home churches/priories.
That was then - his burial was inappropriate for a king of England. It is not "changing history" to give Richard a burial in an appropriate place now. It does not alter the fact that Tudor had him buried there originally - "history" says he was buried there by Tudor - that does not stop Richard being buried elsewhere now. Little Anne Mowbray was found buried by workmen in the 1960's but they didn't re-bury her in the nearest church and there was no shouting about "changing history" when she was buried in Westminster Abbey - her collateral descendant Lord Mowbray made sure that there was no scientific experimentation on her remains and that he was accorded the authority to organise the interment.
No such luck for Richard.~~
Where any of us is born is an accident of birth - it doesn't mean we want to be buried there. Richard's father had far more connection with Fotheringhay than Richard himself had - he was a small child there, and so it made sense to re-inter Duke Richard and Edmund there: to remove them from their burial places in Pontefract and take them to a place connected with them. So why isn't Richard accorded this right?
Re: Leicester
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
Weds writes:
Thank you for asking in those terms, Stephen.
I don't know about the RSPCA, but I was concerned for the welfare of my horse after he died -- the handsome, elegant man who carried me through bad times and good, who made me laugh, challenged andlaughed at me in turn. The one whose attitude was, "Don't be stupid" when I feared we had no business competing in dressage, who went out and danced because he wanted to and would have done so for no other reason.
I understand that someone who has never had a horse for a friend wouldn't give a toss when mine died. And the rendering factory would stuff bits of him into cans and sell him on the Continent and be happy for the money he brought them.
My friend was buried in the back acre of his home. He wasn't sold as fresh meat on the market.
So when someone asks why I'm concerned with the welfare of a dead king...perhaps it's because he has touched my heart the same way a dead horse did. And I understand that no words of mine will make those asking understand what he means to me, because he has never carried them anywhere. And that's their loss, not mine.
So when I close my eyes I see that dead king as alive, in his home, where he is free to ride. He cannot be stuffed beneath slabs of stone or brought home as a gift shop souvenir.
To misquote/revise Rumi: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. After I die, I'm planning to meet a certain horse there. When our souls lie down in that grass, our world will be too full to talk about the cold world we left behind.
~Weds
Re: Leicester
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 3, 2014, at 11:03 PM, "wednesday.mac@... []" <> wrote:
---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote :
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
Weds writes:
Thank you for asking in those terms, Stephen.
I don't know about the RSPCA, but I was concerned for the welfare of my horse after he died -- the handsome, elegant man who carried me through bad times and good, who made me laugh, challenged andlaughed at me in turn. The one whose attitude was, "Don't be stupid" when I feared we had no business competing in dressage, who went out and danced because he wanted to and would have done so for no other reason.
I understand that someone who has never had a horse for a friend wouldn't give a toss when mine died. And the rendering factory would stuff bits of him into cans and sell him on the Continent and be happy for the money he brought them.
My friend was buried in the back acre of his home. He wasn't sold as fresh meat on the market.
So when someone asks why I'm concerned with the welfare of a dead king...perhaps it's because he has touched my heart the same way a dead horse did. And I understand that no words of mine will make those asking understand what he means to me, because he has never carried them anywhere. And that's their loss, not mine.
So when I close my eyes I see that dead king as alive, in his home, where he is free to ride. He cannot be stuffed beneath slabs of stone or brought home as a gift shop souvenir.
To misquote/revise Rumi: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. After I die, I'm planning to meet a certain horse there. When our souls lie down in that grass, our world will be too full to talk about the cold world we left behind.
~Weds
Re: Leicester
---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote
:
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
Weds writes:
Thank you for asking in those terms, Stephen.
I don't know about the RSPCA, but I was concerned for the welfare of my horse after he died -- the handsome, elegant man who carried me through bad times and good, who made me laugh, challenged andlaughed at me in turn. The one whose attitude was, "Don't be stupid" when I feared we had no business competing in dressage, who went out and danced because he wanted to and would have done so for no other reason.
I understand that someone who has never had a horse for a friend wouldn't give a toss when mine died. And the rendering factory would stuff bits of him into cans and sell him on the Continent and be happy for the money he brought them.
My friend was buried in the back acre of his home. He wasn't sold as fresh meat on the market.
So when someone asks why I'm concerned with the welfare of a dead king...perhaps it's because he has touched my heart the same way a dead horse did. And I understand that no words of mine will make those asking understand what he means to me, because he has never carried them anywhere. And that's their loss, not mine.
So when I close my eyes I see that dead king as alive, in his home, where he is free to ride. He cannot be stuffed beneath slabs of stone or brought home as a gift shop souvenir.
To misquote/revise Rumi: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. After I die, I'm planning to meet a certain horse there. When our souls lie down in that grass, our world will be too full to talk about the cold world we left behind.
~Weds
Re: Leicester
On Jul 4, 2014, at 1:19 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> wrote:
Oh, Weds, you've brought tears to my eyes. I understand such love. Sandra =^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:03 AM To: Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote :
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
Weds writes:
Thank you for asking in those terms, Stephen.
I don't know about the RSPCA, but I was concerned for the welfare of my horse after he died -- the handsome, elegant man who carried me through bad times and good, who made me laugh, challenged andlaughed at me in turn. The one whose attitude was, "Don't be stupid" when I feared we had no business competing in dressage, who went out and danced because he wanted to and would have done so for no other reason.
I understand that someone who has never had a horse for a friend wouldn't give a toss when mine died. And the rendering factory would stuff bits of him into cans and sell him on the Continent and be happy for the money he brought them.
My friend was buried in the back acre of his home. He wasn't sold as fresh meat on the market.
So when someone asks why I'm concerned with the welfare of a dead king...perhaps it's because he has touched my heart the same way a dead horse did. And I understand that no words of mine will make those asking understand what he means to me, because he has never carried them anywhere. And that's their loss, not mine.
So when I close my eyes I see that dead king as alive, in his home, where he is free to ride. He cannot be stuffed beneath slabs of stone or brought home as a gift shop souvenir.
To misquote/revise Rumi: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. After I die, I'm planning to meet a certain horse there. When our souls lie down in that grass, our world will be too full to talk about the cold world we left behind.
~Weds
Re: Leicester
My post was purely metaphorical – that dead horses should not be flogged (whichever meaning of that word applies).
From:
[mailto: ]
Sent: 04 July 2014 13:57
To: < >
Subject: Re: [Richard III Society
Forum] Re: Leicester
Me too, although I am not equestrian! Carol is an accomplished and life long equestrian, and when she reads this, I am sure will be pleased. Animal cruelty repulses me, no matter the setting.
On Jul 4, 2014, at 1:19 AM, "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@...
[]" <>
wrote:
Oh, Weds, you’ve brought tears to my eyes. I understand such love.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 5:03 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
---In , <stephenmlark@...> wrote :
I wonder whether the RSPCA is concerned with the welfare of dead horses?
Weds writes:
Thank you for asking in those terms, Stephen.
I don't know about the RSPCA, but I was concerned for the welfare of my horse
after he died -- the handsome, elegant man who carried me through bad times and
good, who made me laugh, challenged andlaughed at me in turn. The one whose
attitude was, "Don't be stupid" when I feared we had no business competing
in dressage, who went out and danced because he wanted to and would have done
so for no other reason.
I understand that someone who has never had a horse for a friend wouldn't give
a toss when mine died. And the rendering factory would stuff bits of him into
cans and sell him on the Continent and be happy for the money he brought them.
My friend was buried in the back acre of his home. He wasn't sold as fresh meat
on the market.
So when someone asks why I'm concerned with the welfare of a dead
king...perhaps it's because he has touched my heart the same way a dead horse
did. And I understand that no words of mine will make those asking understand
what he means to me, because he has never carried them anywhere. And that's
their loss, not mine.
So when I close my eyes I see that dead king as alive, in his home, where he is
free to ride. He cannot be stuffed beneath slabs of stone or brought home as a
gift shop souvenir.
To misquote/revise Rumi: Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there
is a field. After I die, I'm planning to meet a certain horse there. When our
souls lie down in that grass, our world will be too full to talk about the cold
world we left behind.
~Weds
Re: Leicester
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Alison, Thank you for your long and deeply considered reply. I respect your view, and sincerely do not wish to cause offence here.
It just seems to me that Richard died where he died and was buried where he was buried.
He was defeated by Henry Tudor, and that was where the victor of the Battle of Bosworth chose to bury him.
You might not like that, I might not like that, we may, and almost certainly do wish that Richard had won, and not have been unceremoniously buried by the Greyfriars, but that is what happened, and no amount of wishing and hoping can change that, wherever his bones are laid to rest.
I would have expected, if Richard had lived that he would have been interred at Westminster Abbey beside his wife, or if he had another successful marriage, possibly at St George's Chapel, Windsor
As it was, he did not survive and he has rested peacefully if ignominiously in Leicester ever since.
His body is now part of the soil of Leicester, and nothing can be gained now by removing his bones to York, because be liked it there.
Henry Tudor won the battle, that is the story and the legend. This is supported by both written and archaeological evidence.
He was, I am sure we both agree, a deplorable character, but he was a king of England, and cannot and should not have his deeds and misdeeds written out of history.
York does have a claim on Richard, but it has been decided in a court of law that he should be re-interred in Leicester, we must all protect his memory and accept that.
It should be comforting to you that Richard was born and died in the East Midlands, so he is returning to the soil from which he came, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Further, on a personal note, I love York, I have never been to Leicester, I live in Essex.
I am not biased about this. It just seems the right thing to do.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:20:31 PM
Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the
majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have
waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or
even
'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable
events of
2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some
of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no
one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I
suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again
as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On
Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not
have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being
taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be
that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Dear Everyone -
I have enjoyed reading Jess's email in particular, expressing some thoughts in ways that I have not considered before. There is at least one further aspect which I have not heard considered in this matter, and that is that Richard's confessor, whose name escapes me at the moment, was a Franciscan friar, and Grey Friars was a Franciscan friary. So, it is at least a possibility that Richard would have expressed to his confessor prior to the battle where, if things went against him, he wished to lie. At the least, the Franciscans were known to be friendly toward the Plantagenets, and therefore I think it is fair to say that they would have taken custody of Richard's body in lieu of the actual blood relatives of the King and endeavoured to act as much as possible as he and they would have wished.
I do think that it would behoove all of us to make the most of this opportunity although York won't have his bones, it can certainly celebrate Richard's memory. The same goes for Leicester and it is certainly my hope that the ceremonies surrounding Richard's reburial and the new memorials will help to build a new legacy of Richard. This can be not only Leicester and York, but other places with significant Ricardian connections like London, Fotheringhay, Ludlow, and Middleham. These events can result in a win-win for everyone, most especially Richard, which is my sincere hope.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Alison, Thank you for your long and deeply considered reply. I respect your view, and sincerely do not wish to cause offence here.
It just seems to me that Richard died where he died and was buried where he was buried.
He was defeated by Henry Tudor, and that was where the victor of the Battle of Bosworth chose to bury him.
You might not like that, I might not like that, we may, and almost certainly do wish that Richard had won, and not have been unceremoniously buried by the Greyfriars, but that is what happened, and no amount of wishing and hoping can change that, wherever his bones are laid to rest.
I would have expected, if Richard had lived that he would have been interred at Westminster Abbey beside his wife, or if he had another successful marriage, possibly at St George's Chapel, Windsor
As it was, he did not survive and he has rested peacefully if ignominiously in Leicester ever since.
His body is now part of the soil of Leicester, and nothing can be gained now by removing his bones to York, because be liked it there.
Henry Tudor won the battle, that is the story and the legend. This is supported by both written and archaeological evidence.
He was, I am sure we both agree, a deplorable character, but he was a king of England, and cannot and should not have his deeds and misdeeds written out of history.
York does have a claim on Richard, but it has been decided in a court of law that he should be re-interred in Leicester, we must all protect his memory and accept that.
It should be comforting to you that Richard was born and died in the East Midlands, so he is returning to the soil from which he came, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Further, on a personal note, I love York, I have never been to Leicester, I live in Essex.
I am not biased about this. It just seems the right thing to do.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:20:31 PM
Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
On Jul 4, 2014, at 11:41 AM, "Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []" <> wrote:
Dear Everyone -
I have enjoyed reading Jess's email in particular, expressing some thoughts in ways that I have not considered before. There is at least one further aspect which I have not heard considered in this matter, and that is that Richard's confessor, whose name escapes me at the moment, was a Franciscan friar, and Grey Friars was a Franciscan friary. So, it is at least a possibility that Richard would have expressed to his confessor prior to the battle where, if things went against him, he wished to lie. At the least, the Franciscans were known to be friendly toward the Plantagenets, and therefore I think it is fair to say that they would have taken custody of Richard's body in lieu of the actual blood relatives of the King and endeavoured to act as much as possible as he and they would have wished.
I do think that it would behoove all of us to make the most of this opportunity although York won't have his bones, it can certainly celebrate Richard's memory. The same goes for Leicester and it is certainly my hope that the ceremonies surrounding Richard's reburial and the new memorials will help to build a new legacy of Richard. This can be not only Leicester and York, but other places with significant Ricardian connections like London, Fotheringhay, Ludlow, and Middleham. These events can result in a win-win for everyone, most especially Richard, which is my sincere hope.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Alison, Thank you for your long and deeply considered reply. I respect your view, and sincerely do not wish to cause offence here.
It just seems to me that Richard died where he died and was buried where he was buried.
He was defeated by Henry Tudor, and that was where the victor of the Battle of Bosworth chose to bury him.
You might not like that, I might not like that, we may, and almost certainly do wish that Richard had won, and not have been unceremoniously buried by the Greyfriars, but that is what happened, and no amount of wishing and hoping can change that, wherever his
bones are laid to rest.
I would have expected, if Richard had lived that he would have been interred at Westminster Abbey beside his wife, or if he had another successful marriage, possibly at St George's Chapel, Windsor
As it was, he did not survive and he has rested peacefully if ignominiously in Leicester ever since.
His body is now part of the soil of Leicester, and nothing can be gained now by removing his bones to York, because be liked it there.
Henry Tudor won the battle, that is the story and the legend. This is supported by both written and archaeological evidence.
He was, I am sure we both agree, a deplorable character, but he was a king of England, and cannot and should not have his deeds and misdeeds written out of history.
York does have a claim on Richard, but it has been decided in a court of law that he should be re-interred in Leicester, we must all protect his memory and accept that.
It should be comforting to you that Richard was born and died in the East Midlands, so he is returning to the soil from which he came, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Further, on a personal note, I love York, I have never been to Leicester, I live in Essex.
I am not biased about this. It just seems the right thing to do.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Alison Shiels
alisonshiels@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:20:31 PM
Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had
arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any
local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not
have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very
little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated
now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Jess x From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 04/07/2014 17:41
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
Dear Everyone -
I have enjoyed reading Jess's email in particular, expressing some thoughts in ways that I have not considered before. There is at least one further aspect which I have not heard considered in this matter, and that is that Richard's confessor, whose name escapes me at the moment, was a Franciscan friar, and Grey Friars was a Franciscan friary. So, it is at least a possibility that Richard would have expressed to his confessor prior to the battle where, if things went against him, he wished to lie. At the least, the Franciscans were known to be friendly toward the Plantagenets, and therefore I think it is fair to say that they would have taken custody of Richard's body in lieu of the actual blood relatives of the King and endeavoured to act as much as possible as he and they would have wished.
I do think that it would behoove all of us to make the most of this opportunity although York won't have his bones, it can certainly celebrate Richard's memory. The same goes for Leicester and it is certainly my hope that the ceremonies surrounding Richard's reburial and the new memorials will help to build a new legacy of Richard. This can be not only Leicester and York, but other places with significant Ricardian connections like London, Fotheringhay, Ludlow, and Middleham. These events can result in a win-win for everyone, most especially Richard, which is my sincere hope.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Alison, Thank you for your long and deeply considered reply. I respect your view, and sincerely do not wish to cause offence here.
It just seems to me that Richard died where he died and was buried where he was buried.
He was defeated by Henry Tudor, and that was where the victor of the Battle of Bosworth chose to bury him.
You might not like that, I might not like that, we may, and almost certainly do wish that Richard had won, and not have been unceremoniously buried by the Greyfriars, but that is what happened, and no amount of wishing and hoping can change that, wherever his bones are laid to rest.
I would have expected, if Richard had lived that he would have been interred at Westminster Abbey beside his wife, or if he had another successful marriage, possibly at St George's Chapel, Windsor
As it was, he did not survive and he has rested peacefully if ignominiously in Leicester ever since.
His body is now part of the soil of Leicester, and nothing can be gained now by removing his bones to York, because be liked it there.
Henry Tudor won the battle, that is the story and the legend. This is supported by both written and archaeological evidence.
He was, I am sure we both agree, a deplorable character, but he was a king of England, and cannot and should not have his deeds and misdeeds written out of history.
York does have a claim on Richard, but it has been decided in a court of law that he should be re-interred in Leicester, we must all protect his memory and accept that.
It should be comforting to you that Richard was born and died in the East Midlands, so he is returning to the soil from which he came, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Further, on a personal note, I love York, I have never been to Leicester, I live in Essex.
I am not biased about this. It just seems the right thing to do.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:20:31 PM
Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to sa
[The entire original message is not included.]
Re: Leicester
Thanks, Jess and Pamela!
{{{{{{{{{{Group hug}}}}}}}}}}}
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 3:29 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
Thank you Johanne, I am gratified.
Jess x
From: Johanne Tournier jltournier60@... []
Sent: 04/07/2014 17:41
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Leicester
Dear Everyone -
I have enjoyed reading Jess's email in particular, expressing some thoughts in ways that I have not considered before. There is at least one further aspect which I have not heard considered in this matter, and that is that Richard's confessor, whose name escapes me at the moment, was a Franciscan friar, and Grey Friars was a Franciscan friary. So, it is at least a possibility that Richard would have expressed to his confessor prior to the battle where, if things went against him, he wished to lie. At the least, the Franciscans were known to be friendly toward the Plantagenets, and therefore I think it is fair to say that they would have taken custody of Richard's body in lieu of the actual blood relatives of the King and endeavoured to act as much as possible as he and they would have wished.
I do think that it would behoove all of us to make the most of this opportunity although York won't have his bones, it can certainly celebrate Richard's memory. The same goes for Leicester and it is certainly my hope that the ceremonies surrounding Richard's reburial and the new memorials will help to build a new legacy of Richard. This can be not only Leicester and York, but other places with significant Ricardian connections like London, Fotheringhay, Ludlow, and Middleham. These events can result in a win-win for everyone, most especially Richard, which is my sincere hope.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, July 04, 2014 12:47 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Alison, Thank you for your long and deeply considered reply. I respect your view, and sincerely do not wish to cause offence here.
It just seems to me that Richard died where he died and was buried where he was buried.
He was defeated by Henry Tudor, and that was where the victor of the Battle of Bosworth chose to bury him.
You might not like that, I might not like that, we may, and almost certainly do wish that Richard had won, and not have been unceremoniously buried by the Greyfriars, but that is what happened, and no amount of wishing and hoping can change that, wherever his bones are laid to rest.
I would have expected, if Richard had lived that he would have been interred at Westminster Abbey beside his wife, or if he had another successful marriage, possibly at St George's Chapel, Windsor
As it was, he did not survive and he has rested peacefully if ignominiously in Leicester ever since.
His body is now part of the soil of Leicester, and nothing can be gained now by removing his bones to York, because be liked it there.
Henry Tudor won the battle, that is the story and the legend. This is supported by both written and archaeological evidence.
He was, I am sure we both agree, a deplorable character, but he was a king of England, and cannot and should not have his deeds and misdeeds written out of history.
York does have a claim on Richard, but it has been decided in a court of law that he should be re-interred in Leicester, we must all protect his memory and accept that.
It should be comforting to you that Richard was born and died in the East Midlands, so he is returning to the soil from which he came, and there is a certain poetic justice in that.
Further, on a personal note, I love York, I have never been to Leicester, I live in Essex.
I am not biased about this. It just seems the right thing to do.
Jess
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
From: Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... [] <>;
To: <>;
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Sent: Thu, Jul 3, 2014 3:20:31 PM
Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to sa
[The entire original message is not included.]
Re: Leicester
Hi Jess
I
do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some
relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a
particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it
certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town,
city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is
usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we
choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves;
again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family
there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending
many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak
for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I
now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as
Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I
do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been
reinterred.
As
for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place
Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as
ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From
there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of
Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter
where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own
army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and
again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel
nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York,
Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If
York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to
his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their
long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be
having this discussion!!
You
say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption?
Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying
Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500
years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even
'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history'
that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it
were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply
destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not
be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers
(those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one
time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a
position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor,
or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have
removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped
the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been
reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again,
referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the
majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in
small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they
consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious
attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable
website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our
country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of
whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the
remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to
history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave
him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and
desecrated?
I
have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the
finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and
have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is
however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many
others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in
Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they
are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of
York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what
Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be
enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything
more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point
out.
Does
no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to
stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever
was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected
educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their
own research into Richard, his life and times.
I
have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30
years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those
of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the
reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the
public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first
thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they
could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a
King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather
naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that,
and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being
able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To
those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to
the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what
Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have
chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have
been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been
stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on
his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for
an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential
monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by
the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we
must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place,
and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For
those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply
a lie.
Look
to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your
visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe
Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I
dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in
future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of
lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison
Shiels alisonshiels@... []"
<> wrote:
Again you speak out
Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your
voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait
for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole,
begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been
written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53,
colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a
chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean
who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that
Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was
effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC
and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that
the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind,
that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university
body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England.
Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had
wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have
done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted
the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no
law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have
represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed.
Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is
not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been
many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and
wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making
and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about
Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to
do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from
leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
On Friday, 4 July 2014, 23:50, "'Rita' rbu5@... []" <> wrote:
Alison, You have beautifully expressed exactly how I feel and I thank you. I don't post, but read all the emails. This one has definitely struck a chord with me. Again, my appreciation and admiration~~ Rita From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 11:20 AM To: Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: Re: Leicester Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
Re: Leicester
Pamela Bain wrote :
Me too, although I am not equestrian! Carol is an accomplished and life long equestrian, and when she reads this, I am sure will be pleased.
Carol responds:
Which Carol? Definitely not me. I've ridden twice in my life. The second time, the horse took me down a steep hill at a run and I was so scared that I hunched up like a jockey and lost my stirrups!
Carol
Re: Leicester
Pamela Bain wrote :
"Well said, and here here!"
Carol responds:
Sigh. And here I thought I explained the meaning of "hear, hear!" complete with a quotation from Tolkien.
Sorry. I know it's OT, but I really hoped the English lesson would get through. Comes of teaching English for twenty years and editing for sixteen more.
Carol
Re: Leicester
Many do have heartfelt thoughts on where Richard should be buried or where he may have wanted to be so.
The reality is that there were no other viable options given the need to set a date for re internment.
Richard did not leave a will. His relatives at the time (as a poster wrote) or later, at of the dismantling of Grey Friars, did not try to claim or move the body. It simply is not known what he would have wanted.
There was little effort from the alternative cities/churches,officially or publicly to claim Richard.No formal petitions with reasons as to why he should be interred there (besides the unofficial online polls). No proposals as to what they would offer if they would receive the remains. Whereas, Leicester was proceeding apace. They wanted him.
An article posted earlier from this forum kind of sums up the situation with York.
<<Leicester Cathedral will Bury Richard III With Dignity and Honour Olga Hughes February 13, 2013
...York Minster can be slow on the uptake. It took them 15 years to agree to house the commemorative stained-glass window of Richard III, eventually donated by the Richard III society. The Minster is also full. In Leicester Cathedral, however, the tomb would be positioned in a special area defined by wooden screens, with the tomb facing the Cathedral's magnificent east window depicting Christ the King coming in victory at the last....>>
Even the unofficial online polls mentioned on this site favored Leicester in surprisingly low Internet response numbers.
The current regime was apparently content to let the court decide the issue. If York or York Minster had a burning desire to host the king (or Middleham, Fotheringhay, Westminster, Windsor, etc.) they sure had a low key way of showing it.
Yet, as another poster said, this can be a win win situation for all involved as the re-internment preparations provide a splendid opportunity for something special and the other Ricardian-associated places can celebrate aspects of the king's life.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hilary Jones hjnatdat@... [] <>
To: <>
Sent: Sat, Jul 5, 2014 2:39 am
Subject: Re: Re: Leicester
Alison I so much understand your heartfelt message. Being confirmed pro York but admitting defeat when I come up against the Establishment - I bet the action behind the scenes was just like 'Yes Minister' - I have come to terms with this. Why? Because setting aside arguments about burial licences, what he wanted etc etc, he will actually be better off than most British monarchs. He won't be lost in the mess that is Westminster, vying for popularity with Henry VIII at Windsor or, dare I say it, lost in the magnificent architecture of the Minster. We have one ex-king who is in a burial plot at Frogmore, I was waiting for them to suggest that. He'll be in his own much simpler church in the heart of what was his kingdom, England. And the people who go there will go with one purpose, which is to visit him. Compare that with his successor behind his grille in his pretentious chapel. People go there to admire the fan vaulting, gaze at the flying buttresses, learn about the garter stalls or visit Elizabeth and Mary QS in the side chapels. It's a rare one who goes there to say hello to our Henry. Instead they give him a cursory glance as they shuffle by to visit what is undeniably the most popular part of the chapel - that bit which honours those who selflessly gave their young lives in the Battle of Britain. How Richard must smile at that. With Richard nothing is ever straightforward, but I reckon it often works out to the good. And Yorkshire - get your R3 tourist trade geared up! Claim him in life, not in death .H.
(Yes!)
On Friday, 4 July 2014, 23:50, "'Rita' rbu5@... []" <> wrote:
Alison, You have beautifully expressed exactly how I feel and I thank you. I don't post, but read all the emails. This one has definitely struck a chord with me. Again, my appreciation and admiration~~ Rita From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 11:20 AM To: Subject: ***POSSIBLE SPAM*** Re: Re: Leicester Hi Jess
I do not dispute the fact that where a person dies or was killed, does have some relevance or importance, provided of course it can be proven they did hold a particular association with said place. As far as that goes today, it certainly is the case that most of us end our days in either the town, city or village where we have lived for the majority of our lives. This is usually because even if we have moved from our place of birth, we choose to put down roots wherever we have made a life for ourselves; again this is usually because we have chosen to bring up a family there, or simply that we have found work in an area, and have ended up spending many years living there, so much so that we call that place home. I speak for myself here; as though born a Lancastrian (yes, I know!!) I now, after spending most of my life in the Broad Acres, class myself as Yorkshire as they come. You will note from that remark obviously, that I do hold a strong opinion as to just where I believe Richard should have been reinterred.
As for your comment that Leicester, or more specifically Bosworth, was the place Richard decided to fight for his country, I feel this could be construed as ambiguous. Richard left London in May to travel to Windsor. From there to Kenilworth and thence to Nottingham. On hearing of the threat of Tudor's oncoming army he departed to join battle at Bosworth. No matter where Richard might have been it would have been the case that he moved his own army toward his enemy. Indeed if Richard had still been in London, and again this is only conjecture, maybe he would have waited for Tudor to travel nearer to the city before he joined battle. If Richard had been in York, Derby, or indeed anywhere else, his plan would have been the same. If York; possibly he could have waited it out, having called upon those faithful to his cause and of course, knowing Tudor would have a tired army following their long trek from Milford Haven. If that had been the case we would not be having this discussion!!
You say 'for reasons of history'; On what do you base your assumption? Is it because you merely agree with those in Leicester who can only keep saying Richard should remain there because 'he has been here for over 500 years'? or that 'we found him, we should keep him' or even 'Richard loved Leicester'!! Surely if it were for 'reasons of history' that is exactly why Richard's remains should not be left in Leicester; if it were not for the actions of Tudor at the time, who wished to simply destroy every aspect of the House of York, then again this discussion would not be on going because Richard would have been removed by his family and retainers (those who were still alive, that is) to a place befitting his status as one time King of England. I personally believe they may not have been in a position to dare to have buried Richard either in York, Westminster, or Windsor, or for that matter any other great House of God, and that they would have removed his remains to Fotheringhay. I also believe they would have hoped the Yorkists would rise again one day, and then Richard would have been reinterred in either York or Westminster.
Again, referring to your statement 'for reasons of history'. Where are the majority of other medieval Kings and Queens? Are they all interred in small parochial churches given latter day 'Cathedral' status? Were they consigned to tombs whereby only local people would see on their religious attendances? The answer you will note, can be found on any reputable website which gives the last known resting place of all the monarchs of our country. Ask yourself; is it right that we should give this King, of whom we all strive to promote a better understanding, and who, until the remarkable events of 2012, we all thought was lost to us, and lost to history. Is it right we should even EVER have considered it OK to leave him in the place where he fought so courageously, and was so brutally slain and desecrated?
I have read many, many threads on this group, over a period of time from the finding of Richard, right through the whole process of the court hearings, and have had to come to the decision that I simply must let this go. It is however something that I shall always remember as a time when I, and many, many others were let down by those; some of whom have only ever found an interest in Richard since the day he was discovered. These people know who they are. The ones who know the true story of Richard III and the House of York, also know just what he meant to us up here in Yorkshire, and what Yorkshire meant to him. No amount of money or quid pro quo will ever be enough to convince many true Ricardians that what has happened here is anything more than treachery once more for this King, as you so pertinently point out.
Does no one have the guts, in what was once I believed a truly wonderful Society to stand up and be counted even now at this late hour. I believe that whoever was willing to do so would earn more respect from the majority of the respected educational academia, and those factual historical authors who have done their own research into Richard, his life and times.
I have studied and researched this King and the late medieval era for over 30 years, and so I will conclude this unintended diatribe by simply saying to those of you whom I suspect, started out like me, with an interest in history, and the reading of 'Daughter of Time' that back in 2012 when it was first mooted to the public that a search was to begin for the remains of Richard, my very first thought, even before he was found, was how wonderful it would be if they could really find him; he could be brought home and given a burial fit for a King in the Cathedral and church he knew and loved. I believed, rather naively, that anyone else who had read enough about the man, would welcome that, and how it would have joined Leicestershire and Yorkshire together, both being able to tell Richard's story to the world.
To those of you, whom I suspect will attempt to put forward their own responses to the above, I say this. Of course no one really knows exactly what Richard's wishes would have been. Had he lived, then maybe he would have chosen Westminster or Windsor, but only because he would more than likely have been resident in that city as a King of England. There again, as has been stated once more recently; for some reason he felt it pertinent to start work on his Chantry at York; a most ambitious, and without precedent scale of work for an English King; one which exceeded even his brother's not inconsequential monument at Windsor. Why would he do that? No one knows; but just by the knowledge that this is what he was doing, and is documented, then surely we must at least acknowledge just how much Richard held affinity with this place, and again as is documented, from all his life spent in Yorkshire. For those in Leicester to say he hardly spent any time in Yorkshire is quite simply a lie.
Look to your conscience those of you who have done your research, your reading, your visiting of Ricardian sites, and, with a hand on your heart say 'I believe Richard belongs in Leicester'.
I dare say I shall only try and write a couple of short sentences if I post in future, but for now I truly deserve in Yorkshire terms 'a can of lager'!!!
Regards
On Wednesday, 2 July 2014, 18:09, "Alison Shiels alisonshiels@... []" <> wrote:
Again you speak out Colyngbourne. Although I hardly ever post on here, I have to say that your voice speaks the most reason. I am very much afraid we shall have to wait for some time to pass, before those who have nailed their masts to the pole, begin to see exactly how this Shakespearean tragedy has been written!!
On Tuesday, 1 July 2014, 21:53, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
It was not so much that "York didn't make a case" - they were never given a chance. The Dean of York who "commended" Richard to Leicester was the very Dean who in post in Leicester had arranged privately, two years before the dig, that Leicester Cathedral would very happily bury Richard - so York Minster was effectively unable to offer, even if there had been opportunity to do so.
(Did York officials contradict the dean?)
There was no opportunity because Leicester - both LCC and ULAS - had tied up the arrangements well before the dig, stipulating that the dig could only go ahead if there would be a Leicester burial. To my mind, that sounds like blackmail, and is not how any local authority or university body should behave with regard to the human remains of a king of England. Richard Buckley stated to the archaeologist Mike Pitts that even if Philippa had wanted to find Richard to bury him in Windsor, he and Leicester would not have done the dig.
So it's not a cause of who shouted the loudest - Leicester basically rigged it to go their way. And yet there is no law that says remains MUST be buried in the nearest location.
It is not the former dean but the present dean who appears to have represented the king as being dishonourable and in need of redemption.
(I thought it was an earlier dean, not long after the identification of the bones Feb, 2013, since retired or replaced, who first kind of stirred the pot with his plans for a memorial prayer that acknowledged the controversy surrounding the king; that being about the time of the initial proposed plans for a ground level slab instead of raised tomb. It was at about this point that the ongoing process planning the reburial at St. Martin's erupted into controversy, as I recall. But, I could be wrong about the identity of the dean at the time.)
"Leicester has been very aggressive" - yes indeed. Publicly there have been many statements that bluntly say "He's ours" - this is not a national burial but a local private interest burial; also there have been many statements stating that Richard spent very little time in the north and wasn't that attached to places like York "because he didn't have a house there".
(My point. If there was interest elsewhere, it didn't manifest itself, other than Ricardians and the Alliance, which appeared too little, too late.
York just didn't act.)
It's like watching a set of children myth-making and then their stories being taken for gospel truth. And the "new truth" about Richard appears to be that he is a son of leicester, who barely had anything to do with the north - and this is being disseminated now in education packs from leicester University. This is how propaganda happens right before our eyes.
(But Leicester is moving ahead with a complete Richard III center, to the extent they are revamping a section of their historic downtown and Cathedral. York, if interested, can still celebrate their associations with Richard, as it appears they have begun with the Richard III (and Henry VIII) gatehouse museums. And, the re internment may indeed spur other regions to celebrate and enhance their associations with the king. Win-win, as it has been stated before.)
Leicester
proudly telling how "200 members of the public will be allowed at each
of the services." How kind. Should be those who stayed loyal not
rubber-neckers wanting to get onTV. A piece with the flower arranger and
the coffin builder rounded things out.
However. he did finish by saying they were burying the king "with honour
and dignity", which is great to hear.
The start of an awful lot of publicity for King Richard.
The Society should be all over this, and advertising in everything. Why
isn't it?
Paul
