Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 00:29:08
It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
Carol
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
Carol
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 01:32:47
Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
>
What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 03:32:49
Carol,
I agree. The mayor of Leicester if he had done his homework, would know that this is not some splinter group or as someone crassly said some fringe group, but a viable and vibrant organization. I imagine they refer to them as American-based because their corporate office is there, but they do have an active branch here in England and members elsewhere. The Foundation as well as the society have done good things to promote Richard III and the Fifteenth Century. It is rather stupid to put down the work of any organization, and certainly of Richard III whom we are all trying to promote.
I see people here sometimes don't agree, but are civil.
Brit
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
Carol
I agree. The mayor of Leicester if he had done his homework, would know that this is not some splinter group or as someone crassly said some fringe group, but a viable and vibrant organization. I imagine they refer to them as American-based because their corporate office is there, but they do have an active branch here in England and members elsewhere. The Foundation as well as the society have done good things to promote Richard III and the Fifteenth Century. It is rather stupid to put down the work of any organization, and certainly of Richard III whom we are all trying to promote.
I see people here sometimes don't agree, but are civil.
Brit
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:29 PM
Subject: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
Carol
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 10:55:32
Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
>
If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 13:19:20
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 13:49:00
FOTHERINGAY
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
>
> Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
>
> Carol
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 15:22:06
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 15:49:12
An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of the relevance to this discussion though ?
Richard G
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> FOTHERINGAY
Richard G
--- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@...> wrote:
>
> FOTHERINGAY
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 16:45:16
The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE, they are debated in the House of Commons.....
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In , "Richard" <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In , "blancsanglier1452" <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 16:56:39
Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
they are debated in the House of Commons.....
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of
the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
<blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
they are debated in the House of Commons.....
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of
the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
<blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 17:08:25
Oh maybe your right Karen...I thought it was one of the E Petitions to the Government...Maybe it was me that was not paying close attention....probably because I don't think it is going to make a difference in the decision.....But hey for those that wish for a reburial in the Minster its worth a try....
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Karen Clark <Ragged_staff@...> wrote:
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Reply-To: <>
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 17:20:48
Annette:
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 17:27:36
The separation of church and state is American, to my knowledge HRH The
Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
they are debated in the House of Commons.....
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
of
the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
<blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
Karen
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
they are debated in the House of Commons.....
How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
Eileen
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
<RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
>
> An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
of
the relevance to this discussion though ?
>
> Richard G
>
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
<blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> >
> > FOTHERINGAY
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 18:32:05
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-) She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society, to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society, to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 18:53:49
--- In , "walkerjaneway" <renatemm@...> wrote:
>
> The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
>
> Renate
I agree with you......I think the church and the Royal Family's wishes will be the deciding factors here. I have my doubts as to Richard lll Society, even though it was through their endeavours that Richard was found, will, maybe, not have much say in the final resting place. I did at one time but I think it is going to become quite massive....which may not be a bad thing...Richard was an annointed king and deserves a royal funeral....That is if the Royal Family can get their heads around truth rather than the traditional view of our King..and there is of course the Duke of Gloucester's input which will be no small thing.
I think we must all stop worrying..All will be well....I am certain that the right thing will be done by Good King Richard..The eyes of the world are watching....The most important thing at this moment in time is that he is no longer lying beneath a car park....a fate no-one deserves and which speaking on a personal level has caused me much sadness for a very long time....God Rest you King Richard...you are with people who will ensure that your body is treated with respect....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
>
> > IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
>
>
> The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
>
> Renate
I agree with you......I think the church and the Royal Family's wishes will be the deciding factors here. I have my doubts as to Richard lll Society, even though it was through their endeavours that Richard was found, will, maybe, not have much say in the final resting place. I did at one time but I think it is going to become quite massive....which may not be a bad thing...Richard was an annointed king and deserves a royal funeral....That is if the Royal Family can get their heads around truth rather than the traditional view of our King..and there is of course the Duke of Gloucester's input which will be no small thing.
I think we must all stop worrying..All will be well....I am certain that the right thing will be done by Good King Richard..The eyes of the world are watching....The most important thing at this moment in time is that he is no longer lying beneath a car park....a fate no-one deserves and which speaking on a personal level has caused me much sadness for a very long time....God Rest you King Richard...you are with people who will ensure that your body is treated with respect....Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "Annette Carson" <email@> wrote:
>
> > IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> > Regards, Annette
> >
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 19:44:31
Oh, I thought she was already in York - her appointment was announced months ago! Anyway, as you rightly say, these things are doubtless being discussed on many levels behind the scenes, and hopefully in a sober and reverent atmosphere.
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises, because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places ..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-) She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society, to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises, because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places ..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-) She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society, to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In , "Annette Carson" <email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:09:39
I wonder if the bones in Winchester Cathedral (including those of at least 5 kings of England) will ever be properly laid to rest.
For those who don't know the story, Parliamentary soldiers broke into the Cathedral, opened the caskets and scattered the bones. They were then re-interred, but nobody knew which bones belong together, or whose any of them are.
It would be a fascinating study to examine the remains for DNA and reassemble them correctly. This could be justified on the grounds that it would be more respectful to the dead to restore the monuments as far as possible, which modern methods may now make possible.
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Mortuary_Chests.html
Stop Press:
Just found this story, evidently the Cathedral authorities are thinking along these lines even now:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/9696755.Winchester_Cathedral_set_to_launch_unique_research_project_into_ancient_royal_bones/
Hopefully this will prompt the examination of some of those 15th century remains we're all curious about...
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 17:20
Subject: RE: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette:
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
For those who don't know the story, Parliamentary soldiers broke into the Cathedral, opened the caskets and scattered the bones. They were then re-interred, but nobody knew which bones belong together, or whose any of them are.
It would be a fascinating study to examine the remains for DNA and reassemble them correctly. This could be justified on the grounds that it would be more respectful to the dead to restore the monuments as far as possible, which modern methods may now make possible.
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Mortuary_Chests.html
Stop Press:
Just found this story, evidently the Cathedral authorities are thinking along these lines even now:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/9696755.Winchester_Cathedral_set_to_launch_unique_research_project_into_ancient_royal_bones/
Hopefully this will prompt the examination of some of those 15th century remains we're all curious about...
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 17:20
Subject: RE: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette:
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:13:22
Hi, Annette-
Your comments are thought-provoking (as always).
I would note that there are different degrees of proof in a court of law,
depending on whether one is talking about a criminal case ("proof beyond a
reasonable doubt") or a civil case (usually "proof on a balance of
probabilities," which just means a greater than 50% chance of something
being established).
How likely it is that we'll get the proof from the DNA tests that we are
looking for, which would be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," I don't know.
But I suspect that even if the DNA does not provide certainty, when taken
into consideration with the other evidence which they will be able to garner
from the bones and from the burial, it will be persuasive. Thus, I think it
may well be possible for the remains to be interred as Richard's, even if
the identification is not 100% certain. It may be good enough to eliminate
other candidates.
I think that's probably why they are taking so long to get the DNA done -
they are planning on providing a comprehensive picture of all the evidence
in the case, at least I hope that's what they are doing.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Oh, I thought she was already in York - her appointment was announced months
ago! Anyway, as you rightly say, these things are doubtless being discussed
on many levels behind the scenes, and hopefully in a sober and reverent
atmosphere.
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an
identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises,
because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive
identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral
will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster
or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it
has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing
his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know
whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of
identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the
moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can
say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have
different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms
of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is
that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the
deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually
come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be
sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places
..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York
Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester
Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-)
She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put
her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a
Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean
of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa
Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley
and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester
Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of
Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months
on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the
Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only
cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for
remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The
memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of
theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will
continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society,
to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are
reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-
of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the
remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts
that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an
interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester
Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church
establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their
hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other
anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g.
York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and
see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going
public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the
Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
Your comments are thought-provoking (as always).
I would note that there are different degrees of proof in a court of law,
depending on whether one is talking about a criminal case ("proof beyond a
reasonable doubt") or a civil case (usually "proof on a balance of
probabilities," which just means a greater than 50% chance of something
being established).
How likely it is that we'll get the proof from the DNA tests that we are
looking for, which would be "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," I don't know.
But I suspect that even if the DNA does not provide certainty, when taken
into consideration with the other evidence which they will be able to garner
from the bones and from the burial, it will be persuasive. Thus, I think it
may well be possible for the remains to be interred as Richard's, even if
the identification is not 100% certain. It may be good enough to eliminate
other candidates.
I think that's probably why they are taking so long to get the DNA done -
they are planning on providing a comprehensive picture of all the evidence
in the case, at least I hope that's what they are doing.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:44 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Oh, I thought she was already in York - her appointment was announced months
ago! Anyway, as you rightly say, these things are doubtless being discussed
on many levels behind the scenes, and hopefully in a sober and reverent
atmosphere.
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an
identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises,
because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive
identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral
will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster
or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it
has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing
his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know
whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of
identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the
moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can
say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have
different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms
of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is
that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the
deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually
come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be
sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places
..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York
Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester
Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-)
She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put
her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a
Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean
of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa
Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley
and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester
Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of
Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months
on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the
Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only
cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for
remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The
memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of
theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will
continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society,
to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are
reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-
of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the
remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts
that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an
interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester
Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church
establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their
hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other
anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g.
York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and
see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going
public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the
Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:28:44
Another related story:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/4891146.Discovery_could_unlock_mystery_of_royal_bones/
This reminds me of another method of identifying people from bones - it's possible to pinpoint the area of birth and childhood due to the different chemical compositions of water from place to place.
In other words, if the Leicester remains cannot be related to living persons by DNA, they may be identified as someone whose childhood was spent in the Fotheringhay area.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
I wonder if the bones in Winchester Cathedral (including those of at least 5 kings of England) will ever be properly laid to rest.
For those who don't know the story, Parliamentary soldiers broke into the Cathedral, opened the caskets and scattered the bones. They were then re-interred, but nobody knew which bones belong together, or whose any of them are.
It would be a fascinating study to examine the remains for DNA and reassemble them correctly. This could be justified on the grounds that it would be more respectful to the dead to restore the monuments as far as possible, which modern methods may now make possible.
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Mortuary_Chests.html
Stop Press:
Just found this story, evidently the Cathedral authorities are thinking along these lines even now:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/9696755.Winchester_Cathedral_set_to_launch_unique_research_project_into_ancient_royal_bones/
Hopefully this will prompt the examination of some of those 15th century remains we're all curious about...
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 17:20
Subject: RE: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette:
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/4891146.Discovery_could_unlock_mystery_of_royal_bones/
This reminds me of another method of identifying people from bones - it's possible to pinpoint the area of birth and childhood due to the different chemical compositions of water from place to place.
In other words, if the Leicester remains cannot be related to living persons by DNA, they may be identified as someone whose childhood was spent in the Fotheringhay area.
________________________________
From: david rayner <theblackprussian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 20:09
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
I wonder if the bones in Winchester Cathedral (including those of at least 5 kings of England) will ever be properly laid to rest.
For those who don't know the story, Parliamentary soldiers broke into the Cathedral, opened the caskets and scattered the bones. They were then re-interred, but nobody knew which bones belong together, or whose any of them are.
It would be a fascinating study to examine the remains for DNA and reassemble them correctly. This could be justified on the grounds that it would be more respectful to the dead to restore the monuments as far as possible, which modern methods may now make possible.
http://www.churchmonumentssociety.org/Mortuary_Chests.html
Stop Press:
Just found this story, evidently the Cathedral authorities are thinking along these lines even now:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/9696755.Winchester_Cathedral_set_to_launch_unique_research_project_into_ancient_royal_bones/
Hopefully this will prompt the examination of some of those 15th century remains we're all curious about...
________________________________
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 11 October 2012, 17:20
Subject: RE: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Annette:
Not wishing to be totally unread on this subject I did a little research and came up with this
http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-apologypolitics/article_1623.jsp
However the case of R3 is to my knowledge a complete first, as the only other King/s found in recent history I believe would be the Sutton Hoo burial a different scenario totally. The whole idea of dealing with both a King of England and one surrounding such potential controversy as to the justification of the Tudor line is one very hot potato!
Similar articles dealing with the ownership of bones etc. enter into repatriation and reburial, should they be war dead or native graves however the outcome appears the same, that is, if living family are located then they have the prime decision after which it becomes that of a country ( war dead) In the case of ancient remains then they are studied until which time they can be placed on display ( King Tut etc.) Both the British Museum and the Natural History museum have thousands of remains for the use of anthropologists, historians and medical forensics'.
It would seem that the more I get to understand R3 and his potential discovery the more intriguing life becomes
Regards
George
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Annette Carson
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:22 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Yes, I think that's roughly what I said ... except that of course he hasn't yet been identified. Representations may indeed come forward from all sorts of places, only we haven't seen anything official yet.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: George Butterfield
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Thanks for your thoughts Annette.
I agree totally that all permissions were acquired prior to any excavations, however because of the high status of the remains, I would suggest that the existing format may be under further consideration after all it's a once in a lifetime opportunity for all concerned.
I am sure that having "Gods annointed most Catholic king of England presents a interesting question to the Church of England.....perhaps Rome should be involved :-/
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 11, 2012, at 5:55 AM, "Annette Carson" <email@... <mailto:email%40annettecarson.plus.com> > wrote:
> Hi George - Philippa Langley assures me that nobody "owns" human remains. That's why the UK has laws that cover their exhumation and subsequent proper treatment - the university is acting in accordance with those laws. But of course, provided nothing inappropriate is proposed, there could be any number of different suggestions as to how and where our warrior knight could be reinterred. For example, since he was 99 percent certain to have been Roman Catholic, we may yet have representations that he should be laid to rest at a Catholic foundation. There are also certain legal rights that pertain to the families of the deceased, but that is extremely complicated and may only become involved when and if we have a definite identification.
>
> If I may offer my two-penn'orth, I think that things are getting a little back to front. When Philippa set about the search for Richard's grave, she made all the necessary applications and secured all the necessary clearances with all interested parties ahead of hiring the archaeologists (which is why it took over three years!). The offer from Leicester Cathedral was immediate and enthusiastic, and conformed to all the legalities and conventions, and was approved by all role players as a workable and satisfactory plan. IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified
manner. If I, as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George Butterfield
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> Who actually owns the remains? that would be the crown and as such the mortal remains would be at HM pleasure (or advisors) to deal with.
> What a mayor,bishop or member of the press decides is purely conjecture
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:29 PM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@... <mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com> > wrote:
>
> > It looks as if the American-based Richard III Foundation's petition to have Richard buried in York is being snubbed by the mayor of Leicester (and more politely rejected by the research team):
> >
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-dig-American-group-bid-King-s-remains/story-17061170-detail/story.html
> >
> > Personally, I agree with the mayor that Richard (if the bones are his) should remain in Leicester, but he (the mayor) could use a few lessons in tact.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:40:54
Apparently, it's all to do with strontium isotopes:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/7073.html
Its even possible to tell what diet the person had!
However, Fotheringhay and Leicester are not all that far apart; it may be that they have the same SI signature.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/7073.html
Its even possible to tell what diet the person had!
However, Fotheringhay and Leicester are not all that far apart; it may be that they have the same SI signature.
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:43:13
Good point, David. How many years did Richard live at Fotheringhay? Did he spend his whole childhood there? I suppose if he was moved around a lot as a youngster, the layers (?) of deposits in the enamel might become more complex and difficult to analyse.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Another related story:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/4891146.Discovery_could_unlock_mystery_of_royal_bones/
This reminds me of another method of identifying people from bones - it's possible to pinpoint the area of birth and childhood due to the different chemical compositions of water from place to place.
In other words, if the Leicester remains cannot be related to living persons by DNA, they may be identified as someone whose childhood was spent in the Fotheringhay area.
Johanne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...
or jltournier@...
"With God, all things are possible."
- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of david rayner
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 4:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Another related story:
http://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/winchester/4891146.Discovery_could_unlock_mystery_of_royal_bones/
This reminds me of another method of identifying people from bones - it's possible to pinpoint the area of birth and childhood due to the different chemical compositions of water from place to place.
In other words, if the Leicester remains cannot be related to living persons by DNA, they may be identified as someone whose childhood was spent in the Fotheringhay area.
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-11 20:43:59
Yes, these isotope techniques are scheduled to form part of the laboratory testing.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Apparently, it's all to do with strontium isotopes:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/7073.html
Its even possible to tell what diet the person had!
However, Fotheringhay and Leicester are not all that far apart; it may be that they have the same SI signature.
Cheers, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: david rayner
To:
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Apparently, it's all to do with strontium isotopes:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2010/7073.html
Its even possible to tell what diet the person had!
However, Fotheringhay and Leicester are not all that far apart; it may be that they have the same SI signature.
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 01:13:55
Annette said: "Because we know Leicester Cathedral will give him a good home
whoever he is"
This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the woman who
was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:44:24 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Oh, I thought she was already in York - her appointment was announced months
ago! Anyway, as you rightly say, these things are doubtless being discussed
on many levels behind the scenes, and hopefully in a sober and reverent
atmosphere.
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an
identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises,
because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive
identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral
will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster
or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it
has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing
his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know
whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of
identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the
moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can
say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have
different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms
of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is
that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the
deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually
come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be
sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places
..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York
Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester
Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-)
She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put
her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a
Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean
of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa
Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley
and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester
Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of
Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months
on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the
Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only
cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for
remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The
memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of
theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will
continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society,
to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are
reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-
of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the
remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts
that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an
interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester
Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church
establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats
in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so
that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I,
as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my
route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could
be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the
government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward
corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
whoever he is"
This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the woman who
was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
Karen
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:44:24 +0100
To: <>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
Oh, I thought she was already in York - her appointment was announced months
ago! Anyway, as you rightly say, these things are doubtless being discussed
on many levels behind the scenes, and hopefully in a sober and reverent
atmosphere.
I know I keep banging on about it, but we really don't have an
identification yet. (This also relates to the ethical point George raises,
because what happens to human remains depends very much on who they are.)
I think we have to face the fact that we may never get a full-on, positive
identification. Why is this relevant? Because we know Leicester Cathedral
will give him a good home whoever he is, but will York, Windsor, Westminster
or anywhere else? This would surely need to form part of the debate, as it
has already with Leicester. Will others declare their hand ahead of knowing
his identity? Or will they (if interested) come forward only when they know
whether he is definitely confirmed as Richard III? And what degree of
identification will be satisfactory? There are so many imponderables at the
moment that the whole position is full of what-ifs. I don't know how I can
say this without upsetting anyone, but it seems sad that people who have
different views about his resting place seem to express it chiefly in terms
of his turning out to be identified as Richard, whereas the grim reality is
that we may never know for sure, and realistically this could well be the
deciding factor as to whether or not he is wanted. For us it may eventually
come down to what we individually believe in our hearts, but this may not be
sufficient when it comes to state funerals and memorials in public places
..... No offence intended, just looking at the realities of the situation.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: walkerjaneway
To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
Annette, I agree that we can assume that Leicester Cathedral and York
Minster are in close contact. In particular since the Dean of Leicester
Cathedral, V.Rev. Vivienne Faull has just become Dean of York Minster. ;-)
She spoke for Leicester recently, can she now speak for York? It could put
her into an awkward position. Interesting twist, though.
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/
Her press statement on Sept. 12, 2012:
"In light of the discovery of human remains at the archaeological site of a
Leicester church opposite the Cathedral, the Very Revd Vivienne Faull, Dean
of Leicester, says:
"The news from the excavation is very exciting and I congratulate Philippa
Langley of the Richard III Society for her persistence and Richard Buckley
and his team of archaeologists for their painstaking work. Leicester
Cathedral, along with Leicester City Council, and the University of
Leicester, has worked closely with the Richard III Society for many months
on the current search.
There has been a major memorial to King Richard at the heart of the
Cathedral and adjacent to the Herrick Chapel since 1980. This is the only
cathedral memorial to Richard in the country and has been the focus for
remembrance, particularly on the anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. The
memorial states that Richard was buried in the graveyard of the Church of
theGreyfriars in the parish of St Martin (now the cathedral church).
If the identity of the remains is confirmed, Leicester Cathedral will
continue to work with the Royal Household, and with the Richard III Society,
to ensure that his remains are treated with dignity and respect and are
reburied with the appropriate rites and ceremonies of the church."
http://www.leicester.anglican.org/news/details/dean-of-leicester-named-dean-
of-york
The church has a very strong position in this matter, not least because the
remains have been found in consegrated ground, and I have serious doubts
that they will allow to be influenced by any kind of petition.
Renate
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Annette Carson"
<email@...> wrote:
> IMHO I think it's surely up to any other religious houses to express an
interest, whereupon their offers to give him a home could, like Leicester
Cathedral's, be submitted and considered. I'm sure the various Church
establishments are able to make up their own minds whether to throw their hats
in the ring, and are probably constantly in touch with each other anyway, so
that their interest, or lack of it, can be handled in a dignified manner. If I,
as an individual, had a particular alternative in mind, e.g. York, I think my
route would have been to approach York Minster first and see whether they could
be encouraged to come on board, rather than going public and petitioning the
government, which seems rather to back them (the Minster) into an awkward
corner. But that's just the way I see it.
> Regards, Annette
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 01:29:06
"blancsanglier1452" wrote:
>
> FOTHERINGAY
Carol responds:
Speaking of unfinished sentences. . . . Are you suggesting that Richard (if it is Richard) should be buried at his birthplace, Fotheringhay? Maybe you could start a new petition. <Smile>
Carol
>
> FOTHERINGAY
Carol responds:
Speaking of unfinished sentences. . . . Are you suggesting that Richard (if it is Richard) should be buried at his birthplace, Fotheringhay? Maybe you could start a new petition. <Smile>
Carol
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 03:33:31
[Looking up from painstaking cross-stitch of Stars and Stripes wall hanging.] What?
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> The separation of church and state is American, to my knowledge HRH The
> Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
> American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
> you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
> of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , "George Butterfield" <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> The separation of church and state is American, to my knowledge HRH The
> Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
> American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
> you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
> of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 03:43:52
Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't, and it's
parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just order York
Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on the basis
of however many signatures.
Karen
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:33:30 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
[Looking up from painstaking cross-stitch of Stars and Stripes wall
hanging.] What?
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "George Butterfield"
<gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> The separation of church and state is American, to my knowledge HRH The
> Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
> American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
> you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
> of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just order York
Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on the basis
of however many signatures.
Karen
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 02:33:30 -0000
To: <>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
[Looking up from painstaking cross-stitch of Stars and Stripes wall
hanging.] What?
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "George Butterfield"
<gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> The separation of church and state is American, to my knowledge HRH The
> Queen is the Head of State and the head of the Church of England To date
> American law does not constitute a world power in spite of what CNN may tell
> you, amazingly there are other countries out there !
>
>
>
> From:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> [mailto:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Karen Clark
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:57 AM
> To:
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> Is it a government decision, though? What with the separation of church and
> state, and all that. I thought they were planning on sending the petition to
> York Minster, but I must admit I haven't been paying close attention.
>
> Karen
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...
> <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com> >
> Reply-To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:15 -0000
> To: <
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
> The E Petitions have to get at least 100,000 signatures....then, MAYBE,
> they are debated in the House of Commons.....
> How long would this take? How long is a piece of string?
>
> Eileen
> --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "Richard"
> <RSG_Corris@> wrote:
> >
> > An excellent short-lived folk-rock group fronted by Sandy Denny - not sure
> of
> the relevance to this discussion though ?
> >
> > Richard G
> >
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "blancsanglier1452"
> <blancsanglier1452@> wrote:
> > >
> > > FOTHERINGAY
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 12:14:05
Dear Karen,
> This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
> support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the
> woman who
> was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
I think there is an important symbolic dimension to returning him to
the North, if his identity is confirmed as far as it can be (and that
doesn't necessarily even mean getting viable DNA: Isotope testing,
Carbon 14, facial reconstruction, & c can do pretty well, and it's
only in fairly recent years DNA testing has been available to us).
In symbolic/mythic terms:
For the past few decades ý roughly as many years as Richard lived ý
the North has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth and had its
economic and social fabric gutted. As a long-time Arthurian
literature buff, I can't help but be struck by the idea of returning
to it this King, with his wonky spine and dreadful wounds, and
accusations of being some kind of 'sinner' - "le roi
pýcheur" (nothing to do with fishing - that's a mediýval translation
gaffe...)
Re: the lady:
Given that she was found disarticulated, a few possibilities spring
to mind: is she a boxed-up 'religious relic', or perhaps a benefactor
of the Friary who has been exhumed and reinterred there? Again, C-14
testing & c would be interesting.
cheers,
Marianne
> This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
> support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the
> woman who
> was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
I think there is an important symbolic dimension to returning him to
the North, if his identity is confirmed as far as it can be (and that
doesn't necessarily even mean getting viable DNA: Isotope testing,
Carbon 14, facial reconstruction, & c can do pretty well, and it's
only in fairly recent years DNA testing has been available to us).
In symbolic/mythic terms:
For the past few decades ý roughly as many years as Richard lived ý
the North has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth and had its
economic and social fabric gutted. As a long-time Arthurian
literature buff, I can't help but be struck by the idea of returning
to it this King, with his wonky spine and dreadful wounds, and
accusations of being some kind of 'sinner' - "le roi
pýcheur" (nothing to do with fishing - that's a mediýval translation
gaffe...)
Re: the lady:
Given that she was found disarticulated, a few possibilities spring
to mind: is she a boxed-up 'religious relic', or perhaps a benefactor
of the Friary who has been exhumed and reinterred there? Again, C-14
testing & c would be interesting.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 12:17:16
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 12:19:49
Marianne
I understand the connections between York and Richard, and to some extent
understand the calls to rebury him there. It's just that I can't come up
with a lucid reason for removing him from Leicester. I'm intrigued by the
remains of the woman! I so want to know who she was.
Karen
On 12/10/12 10:14 PM, "Dr M M Gilchrist"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dear Karen,
>
>> This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
>> support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the
>> woman who
>> was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
>
>I think there is an important symbolic dimension to returning him to
>the North, if his identity is confirmed as far as it can be (and that
>doesn't necessarily even mean getting viable DNA: Isotope testing,
>Carbon 14, facial reconstruction, & c can do pretty well, and it's
>only in fairly recent years DNA testing has been available to us).
>
>In symbolic/mythic terms:
>For the past few decades – roughly as many years as Richard lived –
>the North has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth and had its
>economic and social fabric gutted. As a long-time Arthurian
>literature buff, I can't help but be struck by the idea of returning
>to it this King, with his wonky spine and dreadful wounds, and
>accusations of being some kind of 'sinner' - "le roi
>pécheur" (nothing to do with fishing - that's a mediæval translation
>gaffe...)
>
>Re: the lady:
>Given that she was found disarticulated, a few possibilities spring
>to mind: is she a boxed-up 'religious relic', or perhaps a benefactor
>of the Friary who has been exhumed and reinterred there? Again, C-14
>testing & c would be interesting.
>
>cheers,
>Marianne
>
I understand the connections between York and Richard, and to some extent
understand the calls to rebury him there. It's just that I can't come up
with a lucid reason for removing him from Leicester. I'm intrigued by the
remains of the woman! I so want to know who she was.
Karen
On 12/10/12 10:14 PM, "Dr M M Gilchrist"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Dear Karen,
>
>> This is what I understand as well, which is one of the reasons I can't
>> support the calls for him (whoever he is, and not forgetting the
>> woman who
>> was found) to be buried anywhere but Leicester.
>
>I think there is an important symbolic dimension to returning him to
>the North, if his identity is confirmed as far as it can be (and that
>doesn't necessarily even mean getting viable DNA: Isotope testing,
>Carbon 14, facial reconstruction, & c can do pretty well, and it's
>only in fairly recent years DNA testing has been available to us).
>
>In symbolic/mythic terms:
>For the past few decades – roughly as many years as Richard lived –
>the North has been repeatedly kicked in the teeth and had its
>economic and social fabric gutted. As a long-time Arthurian
>literature buff, I can't help but be struck by the idea of returning
>to it this King, with his wonky spine and dreadful wounds, and
>accusations of being some kind of 'sinner' - "le roi
>pécheur" (nothing to do with fishing - that's a mediæval translation
>gaffe...)
>
>Re: the lady:
>Given that she was found disarticulated, a few possibilities spring
>to mind: is she a boxed-up 'religious relic', or perhaps a benefactor
>of the Friary who has been exhumed and reinterred there? Again, C-14
>testing & c would be interesting.
>
>cheers,
>Marianne
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
2012-10-12 12:28:30
Thanks for uploading the BBC History file, also for clearing the issue of who wields the real power when it comes to parliament and the Queen.
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
2012-10-12 12:43:13
Hi Marion - Just to reassure you that Philippa has been working closely with the Duke of Gloucester on this for some years. I personally try to stay away from debates that involve the royal family, because I know there are many reasons why they are a contentious subject. However, there's no way that discussions about exhuming royal remains (or potential or presumed royal remains) can exclude them, that's just the way things work. And in the context of the Richard III Society, whose support for this project was pivotal, one would always wish to ensure that the Society's patron was comfortable with whatever was being done. Always best to have all interested parties on-side.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Thanks for uploading the BBC History file, also for clearing the issue of who wields the real power when it comes to parliament and the Queen.
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Thanks for uploading the BBC History file, also for clearing the issue of who wields the real power when it comes to parliament and the Queen.
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
2012-10-12 15:29:27
Glad to hear the Duke is involved, he has been a good patron over the years, and usually very fair minded.
Marion
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:43
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Hi Marion - Just to reassure you that Philippa has been working closely with the Duke of Gloucester on this for some years. I personally try to stay away from debates that involve the royal family, because I know there are many reasons why they are a contentious subject. However, there's no way that discussions about exhuming royal remains (or potential or presumed royal remains) can exclude them, that's just the way things work. And in the context of the Richard III Society, whose support for this project was pivotal, one would always wish to ensure that the Society's patron was comfortable with whatever was being done. Always best to have all interested parties on-side.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Thanks for uploading the BBC History file, also for clearing the issue of who wields the real power when it comes to parliament and the Queen.
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Marion
________________________________
From: Annette Carson <email@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:43
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Hi Marion - Just to reassure you that Philippa has been working closely with the Duke of Gloucester on this for some years. I personally try to stay away from debates that involve the royal family, because I know there are many reasons why they are a contentious subject. However, there's no way that discussions about exhuming royal remains (or potential or presumed royal remains) can exclude them, that's just the way things work. And in the context of the Richard III Society, whose support for this project was pivotal, one would always wish to ensure that the Society's patron was comfortable with whatever was being done. Always best to have all interested parties on-side.
Regards, Annette
----- Original Message -----
From: marion cheatham
To:
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
Thanks for uploading the BBC History file, also for clearing the issue of who wields the real power when it comes to parliament and the Queen.
I find it quite worrying that the Queen will have input, after all she has refused to allow DNA testing on the bones of the so called Princes in Westminster Abbey for years. Can we not get the Duke of Gloucester on side before the decision is made or at least find out his view regarding the reburial.
The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
Love it
M
________________________________
From: Dr M M Gilchrist <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
Dear Karen,
> Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> and it's
> parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> order York
> Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> the basis
> of however many signatures.
But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
cheers,
Marianne
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 16:11:50
--- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
>
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 16:12:44
Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York et al
2012-10-12 16:16:56
--- In , marion cheatham <marioncheatham2003@...> wrote:
>
This is exactly my feelings too Marion....Donations fine! Fixed and overpriced entrance fees No....!Eileen
>
> The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
>
> And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
>
> Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
>
> Love it
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
>
> Â
> Dear Karen,
>
> > Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> > and it's
> > parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> > order York
> > Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> > the basis
> > of however many signatures.
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This is exactly my feelings too Marion....Donations fine! Fixed and overpriced entrance fees No....!Eileen
>
> The problem I have with Westminster Abbey or York Minster as burial places is that they are tourist attractions and therefore cost a great deal to enter. I would like the chance to pay my respects to Richard (if it is him) whenever I want not whenever I can afford it. It is a disgrace that we have to pay to enter churches which have former monarchs remains in them at all. After all my ancestors probably fought for one side or the other at the time, or at least paid taxes to them.
>
> And before everyone comes in - Yes I have traced one side of my family to the 1600's so I am English. Just wish I knew which side any of them fought on.
>
> Also wanted to say fantastic discussions, great to have such widespread debate on the forum, I am having difficulty keeping up with all the posts.
>
> Love it
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 12 October 2012, 12:17
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
>
> Â
> Dear Karen,
>
> > Yes, the queen is head of the Church of England. Parliament isn't,
> > and it's
> > parliament that gets petitions. I'm fairly sure they can't just
> > order York
> > Minster to offer burial for the (presumed) remains of Richard on
> > the basis
> > of however many signatures.
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 16:17:12
True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 16:26:02
--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
Why so?
Eileen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Marianne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
Why so?
Eileen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > Marianne
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 19:37:09
the monarch has royal perogative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom
i am of the mind that whatever the queen really, really, really wants to happen..will happen. so while she does "rubber" stamp, she can still use her "great seal" to veto or endorse whatever she chooses.
i am a staunch monarchist. and i love that is what makes canada..canada instead of the usa. we can go to the queen's rep, and beyond to her to ask for relief from any decision our prime minister/parliament may make.
roslyn
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:12 AM
Totally agree....rather sad isnt it....
>
> But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> cheers,
> Marianne
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 19:39:13
a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To: "" <>
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To: "" <>
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@...> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > cheers,
> > Marianne
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 19:54:30
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-12 19:56:28
Ooooooops sorry...forgot to change heading on previous message...should read Royal Perogative....
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > To: "" <>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > cheers,
> >
> > > > Marianne
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> > To: "" <>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > cheers,
> >
> > > > Marianne
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Royal Prerogative, etc. (was RE: Richard III Foundation's petition f
2012-10-12 20:15:56
Hi, Eileen –
Hmm. . . that’s interesting. I assume that Edward VIII’s inability to marry
Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
England, of which he was ostensible head. But that’s sort of ironic,
considering the way the Church of England was founded, thanks to Henry
VIII’s peccadilloes and all that. And now times have changed again, as
Charles’s marriage to Camilla was okayed by the Powers That Be (though that
is considered a morganatic marriage, is it not?).
But although, like Roslyn, I am Canadian and a thorough monarchist, I don’t
pretend to know the ins and outs of the royal prerogative or much more about
the residual powers of the Crown. I do recall that the Queen had to assent
to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, which before . . . 1984 or
so . . . was contained in the British North America Act, a statute of
Parliament. Of course, the framework of the monarchy is still in place here,
too, with all land originally vested in the Crown (as in Britain) and then
certain rights in certain parcels being conveyed to grantees. Also, Acts
passed by the Federal Parliament or the Provincial legislatures are assented
to by the appropriate Queen’s representative, the Governor General or
Lieutenant Governor for the particular province. And so on.
Until fairly recently, the House of Lords (actually a few lords called “Law
Lords,”which made up the Court of Appeal) was the ultimate court of appeal
for Canada, which meant that cases could be appealed to the British Court of
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it was probably the
patriation of the Constitution which eliminated that possibility.
TTFN,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward
Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose
between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would
not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@>
wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament
says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hmm. . . that’s interesting. I assume that Edward VIII’s inability to marry
Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
England, of which he was ostensible head. But that’s sort of ironic,
considering the way the Church of England was founded, thanks to Henry
VIII’s peccadilloes and all that. And now times have changed again, as
Charles’s marriage to Camilla was okayed by the Powers That Be (though that
is considered a morganatic marriage, is it not?).
But although, like Roslyn, I am Canadian and a thorough monarchist, I don’t
pretend to know the ins and outs of the royal prerogative or much more about
the residual powers of the Crown. I do recall that the Queen had to assent
to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, which before . . . 1984 or
so . . . was contained in the British North America Act, a statute of
Parliament. Of course, the framework of the monarchy is still in place here,
too, with all land originally vested in the Crown (as in Britain) and then
certain rights in certain parcels being conveyed to grantees. Also, Acts
passed by the Federal Parliament or the Provincial legislatures are assented
to by the appropriate Queen’s representative, the Governor General or
Lieutenant Governor for the particular province. And so on.
Until fairly recently, the House of Lords (actually a few lords called “Law
Lords,”which made up the Court of Appeal) was the ultimate court of appeal
for Canada, which meant that cases could be appealed to the British Court of
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it was probably the
patriation of the Constitution which eliminated that possibility.
TTFN,
Johanne
From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:54 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
for burial in York
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward
Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose
between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would
not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
petition for burial in York
> To: "
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
<
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In
<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@>
wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament
says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
2012-10-12 20:40:56
Johanne, Im like you in that I dont know all the ins and outs of the royal perogative...I thought the term was pretty archaic as I cannot ever remember any instance, in living memory, where it has ever been brought into use...Im sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here. My perception of it is that Queen Elizabeth simply does not seem to rock the boat...She has an audience one a week with the Prime Minister...but I get the impression that she does not have much input. Of course in family and matters it may well be different. Such as the instance with Princess Diana's death....when she took a lot of persuasion to come back to London..However I dont know if we can go so much of topic here to discuss this in more detail. But as you say it all very interesting and does have some bearing on the subject of Richard's funeral.
Can I just add here, that sometimes the royal family have been known to put their foot down as with the Queen Mother, who when she was Queen during the War refused to leave the King when London was getting bombed....what a gal....! "The children will not leave without their mother, their mother will not leave without the King and the King will never leave"
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
Eileen....fingers crossed she dont get mullered for going totally off topic...
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen –
>
> Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
> Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
> England, of which he was ostensible head. But that's sort of ironic,
> considering the way the Church of England was founded, thanks to Henry
> VIII's peccadilloes and all that. And now times have changed again, as
> Charles's marriage to Camilla was okayed by the Powers That Be (though that
> is considered a morganatic marriage, is it not?).
>
>
>
> But although, like Roslyn, I am Canadian and a thorough monarchist, I don't
> pretend to know the ins and outs of the royal prerogative or much more about
> the residual powers of the Crown. I do recall that the Queen had to assent
> to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, which before . . . 1984 or
> so . . . was contained in the British North America Act, a statute of
> Parliament. Of course, the framework of the monarchy is still in place here,
> too, with all land originally vested in the Crown (as in Britain) and then
> certain rights in certain parcels being conveyed to grantees. Also, Acts
> passed by the Federal Parliament or the Provincial legislatures are assented
> to by the appropriate Queen's representative, the Governor General or
> Lieutenant Governor for the particular province. And so on.
>
>
>
> Until fairly recently, the House of Lords (actually a few lords called "Law
> Lords,"which made up the Court of Appeal) was the ultimate court of appeal
> for Canada, which meant that cases could be appealed to the British Court of
> Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it was probably the
> patriation of the Constitution which eliminated that possibility.
>
>
>
> TTFN,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward
> Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose
> between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would
> not use the royal perogative unwisely.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
> > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament
> says.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > cheers,
> >
> > > > Marianne
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Can I just add here, that sometimes the royal family have been known to put their foot down as with the Queen Mother, who when she was Queen during the War refused to leave the King when London was getting bombed....what a gal....! "The children will not leave without their mother, their mother will not leave without the King and the King will never leave"
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
Eileen....fingers crossed she dont get mullered for going totally off topic...
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen –
>
> Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
> Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
> England, of which he was ostensible head. But that's sort of ironic,
> considering the way the Church of England was founded, thanks to Henry
> VIII's peccadilloes and all that. And now times have changed again, as
> Charles's marriage to Camilla was okayed by the Powers That Be (though that
> is considered a morganatic marriage, is it not?).
>
>
>
> But although, like Roslyn, I am Canadian and a thorough monarchist, I don't
> pretend to know the ins and outs of the royal prerogative or much more about
> the residual powers of the Crown. I do recall that the Queen had to assent
> to the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, which before . . . 1984 or
> so . . . was contained in the British North America Act, a statute of
> Parliament. Of course, the framework of the monarchy is still in place here,
> too, with all land originally vested in the Crown (as in Britain) and then
> certain rights in certain parcels being conveyed to grantees. Also, Acts
> passed by the Federal Parliament or the Provincial legislatures are assented
> to by the appropriate Queen's representative, the Governor General or
> Lieutenant Governor for the particular province. And so on.
>
>
>
> Until fairly recently, the House of Lords (actually a few lords called "Law
> Lords,"which made up the Court of Appeal) was the ultimate court of appeal
> for Canada, which meant that cases could be appealed to the British Court of
> Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. I think it was probably the
> patriation of the Constitution which eliminated that possibility.
>
>
>
> TTFN,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 3:54 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition
> for burial in York
>
>
>
>
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward
> Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose
> between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would
> not use the royal perogative unwisely.
> >
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
> >
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's
> petition for burial in York
> > To: "
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> "
> <
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> >
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@>
> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
> >
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
> >
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament
> says.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > cheers,
> >
> > > > Marianne
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
2012-10-13 05:15:09
________________________________
Eileen wrote
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
Eileen wrote
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-13 06:48:23
perhaps he didn't want to use it.
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
2012-10-13 10:59:26
Thanks for clarifying that for me, Pamela. It is much appreciated. It is also interesting to realize that there is no such thing as morganatic marriage in the British Constitution. Now, I need to do a bit of reading about it it must have been somebody European that I was thinking of, perhaps the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, whose assassination in Serbia in 1914 launched WWI.
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
________________________________
Eileen wrote
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
________________________________
Eileen wrote
Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
Visit Your Group
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.
now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
2012-10-13 14:28:21
Johanne....here is a link to a Daily Mail article covering the question of Camilla becoming Queen....Its quite interesting....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that for me, Pamela. It is much appreciated. It is also interesting to realize that there is no such thing as morganatic marriage in the British Constitution. Now, I need to do a bit of reading about it â€" it must have been somebody European that I was thinking of, perhaps the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, whose assassination in Serbia in 1914 launched WWI.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote
>
> Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
>
> There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
>
> nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
Eileen
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying that for me, Pamela. It is much appreciated. It is also interesting to realize that there is no such thing as morganatic marriage in the British Constitution. Now, I need to do a bit of reading about it â€" it must have been somebody European that I was thinking of, perhaps the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, whose assassination in Serbia in 1914 launched WWI.
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 1:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Eileen wrote
>
> Touching on what you said about Charles and Camilla's marriage being morganic....I don't know if this is the case as I have read that Charles does indeed want Camilla to be Queen if and when he becomes King...But I daresay he would not have the last word in this...and there you go...Royal Perogative...is it alive and kicking or as dead as the poor old DoDo's egg...
>
> There is no concept of morganatic marriage in British law. Camilla is Princess of Wales etc, but it was decided that she would be known by one of the other title to which she is entitled. When Charles becomes King, she will be Queen in law - what title is used to describe her at that point is another matter.
>
> nt Activity: * New Members 4 * New Files 3
> Visit Your Group
>
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Edward VIII
2012-10-13 14:48:04
________________________________
Fayre Rose wrote:
perhaps he didn't want to use it.
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
Me: I think the fact that she had not one, but two living husbands at the time was a big stumbling block! All the heads of government in the (then) British Empire would have to have been consulted and 'soundings' taken seemed to indicate that many would express opposition to his marrying her.
I don't think the Royal Prerogative applied to a monarch's personal wishes. It was more to do with matters of state, for example the right to declare war (now exercised on behalf of the monarch by parliament).
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Fayre Rose wrote:
perhaps he didn't want to use it.
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
Me: I think the fact that she had not one, but two living husbands at the time was a big stumbling block! All the heads of government in the (then) British Empire would have to have been consulted and 'soundings' taken seemed to indicate that many would express opposition to his marrying her.
I don't think the Royal Prerogative applied to a monarch's personal wishes. It was more to do with matters of state, for example the right to declare war (now exercised on behalf of the monarch by parliament).
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Edward VIII
2012-10-13 14:59:19
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
I agree with you Pamela....Tis true...I was being rather flippant there. Probably because my serious take on the matter, of Royal Prerogative, is that it actually no longer exists..If it ever did, not in the real world anyway. Can anyone imagine that the Queen could have, for example, stopped the Iraq war if she had ever wished to do so. Or got Whatsisname deported although she mentioned to someone she was worried about the time it was taking... Can anyone actually think of an instance where the Royal Prerogative has been used?
Eileen
>
> I don't think the Royal Prerogative applied to a monarch's personal wishes. Â It was more to do with matters of state, for example the right to declare war (now exercised on behalf of the monarch by parliament).
>
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To:
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
>
> Â
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ÂÂ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> >
>
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> >
>
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > > > Marianne
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree with you Pamela....Tis true...I was being rather flippant there. Probably because my serious take on the matter, of Royal Prerogative, is that it actually no longer exists..If it ever did, not in the real world anyway. Can anyone imagine that the Queen could have, for example, stopped the Iraq war if she had ever wished to do so. Or got Whatsisname deported although she mentioned to someone she was worried about the time it was taking... Can anyone actually think of an instance where the Royal Prerogative has been used?
Eileen
>
> I don't think the Royal Prerogative applied to a monarch's personal wishes. Â It was more to do with matters of state, for example the right to declare war (now exercised on behalf of the monarch by parliament).
>
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To:
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
>
> Â
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ÂÂ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> >
>
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> >
>
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > > > Marianne
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
2012-10-13 15:17:05
From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:15 PM
Subject: Royal Prerogative, etc.
Hi, Eileen -
Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
England, of which he was ostensible head.//snip//
That and, as I understand it, the fact that the Dominion governments were
also opposed, except that of New Zealand. Edward VIII's marriage to Mrs.
Simpson would have required legislation to be passed separately in each of
those countries, as well as the UK (any such UK legislation would be
effective in the remainder of the BE, including India) for it to be
recognized as legal and, apparently, the various Prime Ministers felt that,
while such legislation would probably pass, it would place the Monarchy
smack dab into the middle of political rows in the respective Dominions.
Basically it would have boiled down to highlighting, in an extremely bad
way, the idea that there were two sets of laws, one for the King (and upper
classes?) and another for everyone else. Not something to be splashed all
over the headlines, especially with the state of international politics in
1936-7!
As to the Royal Prerogative in general, as I understand it (as an outsider),
in regards to legislation it means the Monarch has the right to be kept
informed about the status of any Act of Parliament; what the aims of that
particular Act is, how it's to placed into effect and what results are
expected from its' passage. That's what the famous red boxes and the weekly
meetings with the Prime Minister cover, I believe.
As to how much effect the Monarch has on any particular Act of Parliament or
on government policy, I really don't know. I do find it hard to believe
that, should the Monarch, especially the present Queen, having reigned for
such a long time, bring some matter to the attention of a Prime Minister,
that the Prime Minister wouldn't, at the very least, pay close attention to
the matter she had raised. Conversely, I think it would be strange if the
Queen should request something be done, and that "something" is neither
illegal nor require an inordinate expenditure of time, effort and funds,
that said "something" would not be done.
I could be wrong.
(Note the period!)
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 2:15 PM
Subject: Royal Prerogative, etc.
Hi, Eileen -
Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
England, of which he was ostensible head.//snip//
That and, as I understand it, the fact that the Dominion governments were
also opposed, except that of New Zealand. Edward VIII's marriage to Mrs.
Simpson would have required legislation to be passed separately in each of
those countries, as well as the UK (any such UK legislation would be
effective in the remainder of the BE, including India) for it to be
recognized as legal and, apparently, the various Prime Ministers felt that,
while such legislation would probably pass, it would place the Monarchy
smack dab into the middle of political rows in the respective Dominions.
Basically it would have boiled down to highlighting, in an extremely bad
way, the idea that there were two sets of laws, one for the King (and upper
classes?) and another for everyone else. Not something to be splashed all
over the headlines, especially with the state of international politics in
1936-7!
As to the Royal Prerogative in general, as I understand it (as an outsider),
in regards to legislation it means the Monarch has the right to be kept
informed about the status of any Act of Parliament; what the aims of that
particular Act is, how it's to placed into effect and what results are
expected from its' passage. That's what the famous red boxes and the weekly
meetings with the Prime Minister cover, I believe.
As to how much effect the Monarch has on any particular Act of Parliament or
on government policy, I really don't know. I do find it hard to believe
that, should the Monarch, especially the present Queen, having reigned for
such a long time, bring some matter to the attention of a Prime Minister,
that the Prime Minister wouldn't, at the very least, pay close attention to
the matter she had raised. Conversely, I think it would be strange if the
Queen should request something be done, and that "something" is neither
illegal nor require an inordinate expenditure of time, effort and funds,
that said "something" would not be done.
I could be wrong.
(Note the period!)
Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.
2012-10-13 15:55:20
Hi Johanne...Re Wallis and Edward...you might find this link interesting..
http://www.royalty-magazine.com/archive/wallis.html
Basically I think that, as in any period in history a lot is kept secret and underwraps...but I think your thoughts sound about right....I guess in the 1930s that divorce was frowned upon per se, so casting all the other stuff aside, just the thought of the King marrying a divorcee was too much. I watched a documentary once and it looked as if the public may have been prepared to accept the marriage but whether they knew all the facts I doubt.. As late as the 50s Princess Margaret was forced to give up the man she loved Townsend, who seemed a thoughly nice man because he was divorced. How times have changed....
Re your comments later on in your message re the RP....well you have taught me a thing or two there....thank you :0) Eileen
>
> From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...>
> Hi, Eileen -
>
> Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
> Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
> England, of which he was ostensible head.//snip//
>
> That and, as I understand it, the fact that the Dominion governments were
> also opposed, except that of New Zealand. Edward VIII's marriage to Mrs.
> Simpson would have required legislation to be passed separately in each of
> those countries, as well as the UK (any such UK legislation would be
> effective in the remainder of the BE, including India) for it to be
> recognized as legal and, apparently, the various Prime Ministers felt that,
> while such legislation would probably pass, it would place the Monarchy
> smack dab into the middle of political rows in the respective Dominions.
> Basically it would have boiled down to highlighting, in an extremely bad
> way, the idea that there were two sets of laws, one for the King (and upper
> classes?) and another for everyone else. Not something to be splashed all
> over the headlines, especially with the state of international politics in
> 1936-7!
> As to the Royal Prerogative in general, as I understand it (as an outsider),
> in regards to legislation it means the Monarch has the right to be kept
> informed about the status of any Act of Parliament; what the aims of that
> particular Act is, how it's to placed into effect and what results are
> expected from its' passage. That's what the famous red boxes and the weekly
> meetings with the Prime Minister cover, I believe.
> As to how much effect the Monarch has on any particular Act of Parliament or
> on government policy, I really don't know. I do find it hard to believe
> that, should the Monarch, especially the present Queen, having reigned for
> such a long time, bring some matter to the attention of a Prime Minister,
> that the Prime Minister wouldn't, at the very least, pay close attention to
> the matter she had raised. Conversely, I think it would be strange if the
> Queen should request something be done, and that "something" is neither
> illegal nor require an inordinate expenditure of time, effort and funds,
> that said "something" would not be done.
> I could be wrong.
> (Note the period!)
>
http://www.royalty-magazine.com/archive/wallis.html
Basically I think that, as in any period in history a lot is kept secret and underwraps...but I think your thoughts sound about right....I guess in the 1930s that divorce was frowned upon per se, so casting all the other stuff aside, just the thought of the King marrying a divorcee was too much. I watched a documentary once and it looked as if the public may have been prepared to accept the marriage but whether they knew all the facts I doubt.. As late as the 50s Princess Margaret was forced to give up the man she loved Townsend, who seemed a thoughly nice man because he was divorced. How times have changed....
Re your comments later on in your message re the RP....well you have taught me a thing or two there....thank you :0) Eileen
>
> From: "Johanne Tournier" <jltournier60@...>
> Hi, Eileen -
>
> Hmm. . . that's interesting. I assume that Edward VIII's inability to marry
> Mrs. Simpson had a lot to do with it not being acceptable to the Church of
> England, of which he was ostensible head.//snip//
>
> That and, as I understand it, the fact that the Dominion governments were
> also opposed, except that of New Zealand. Edward VIII's marriage to Mrs.
> Simpson would have required legislation to be passed separately in each of
> those countries, as well as the UK (any such UK legislation would be
> effective in the remainder of the BE, including India) for it to be
> recognized as legal and, apparently, the various Prime Ministers felt that,
> while such legislation would probably pass, it would place the Monarchy
> smack dab into the middle of political rows in the respective Dominions.
> Basically it would have boiled down to highlighting, in an extremely bad
> way, the idea that there were two sets of laws, one for the King (and upper
> classes?) and another for everyone else. Not something to be splashed all
> over the headlines, especially with the state of international politics in
> 1936-7!
> As to the Royal Prerogative in general, as I understand it (as an outsider),
> in regards to legislation it means the Monarch has the right to be kept
> informed about the status of any Act of Parliament; what the aims of that
> particular Act is, how it's to placed into effect and what results are
> expected from its' passage. That's what the famous red boxes and the weekly
> meetings with the Prime Minister cover, I believe.
> As to how much effect the Monarch has on any particular Act of Parliament or
> on government policy, I really don't know. I do find it hard to believe
> that, should the Monarch, especially the present Queen, having reigned for
> such a long time, bring some matter to the attention of a Prime Minister,
> that the Prime Minister wouldn't, at the very least, pay close attention to
> the matter she had raised. Conversely, I think it would be strange if the
> Queen should request something be done, and that "something" is neither
> illegal nor require an inordinate expenditure of time, effort and funds,
> that said "something" would not be done.
> I could be wrong.
> (Note the period!)
>
OT RE: [Richard III Society Forum] now morganatic marriage (was Re:
2012-10-13 17:25:51
Thanks for posting that, Eileen!
I think the Queen is a vigorous and dedicated woman who carries her years well. I am sure she would never abdicate that would go against the vow she made as a young lady to spend her life in faithful service carrying out her role. In the case of Charles, I think it's much more likely that he will be much the same as Edward VII assuming the throne at a rather advanced age, Edward did not reign for very long. I don't think the monarchy needs a really young king and queen it benefits just as much from having all the collateral and lineal descendants able to stand in and assume many of the duties of the monarch, like sponsoring the various charitable causes, which as far as I know they all do. Once William assumes the throne, his life will no longer be his own (nor will Kate's be hers), to an even greater degree than is the case right now.
Besides, based on what I have seen since the marriage of Charles and Camilla, I think there has been a swing in public opinion on all matters concerning the monarchy, including greater satisfaction with Charles and even Camilla. Commentators have made it clear that it is Camilla who took Katherine in tow as a mentor to educate about the ways of being a royal. I seem to recall there are also signs that the Queen has accepted her as well (holiday invitations to Balmoral or some such??)
TTFN J
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
Johanne....here is a link to a Daily Mail article covering the question of Camilla becoming Queen....Its quite interesting....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
Eileen
I think the Queen is a vigorous and dedicated woman who carries her years well. I am sure she would never abdicate that would go against the vow she made as a young lady to spend her life in faithful service carrying out her role. In the case of Charles, I think it's much more likely that he will be much the same as Edward VII assuming the throne at a rather advanced age, Edward did not reign for very long. I don't think the monarchy needs a really young king and queen it benefits just as much from having all the collateral and lineal descendants able to stand in and assume many of the duties of the monarch, like sponsoring the various charitable causes, which as far as I know they all do. Once William assumes the throne, his life will no longer be his own (nor will Kate's be hers), to an even greater degree than is the case right now.
Besides, based on what I have seen since the marriage of Charles and Camilla, I think there has been a swing in public opinion on all matters concerning the monarchy, including greater satisfaction with Charles and even Camilla. Commentators have made it clear that it is Camilla who took Katherine in tow as a mentor to educate about the ways of being a royal. I seem to recall there are also signs that the Queen has accepted her as well (holiday invitations to Balmoral or some such??)
TTFN J
Johanne
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:28 AM
To:
Subject: now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
Johanne....here is a link to a Daily Mail article covering the question of Camilla becoming Queen....Its quite interesting....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
Eileen
OT RE: [Richard III Society Forum] now morganatic marriage (was Re:
2012-10-13 20:00:48
--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
>An excellent post Johanne...
Regarding Camilla....Time heals a lot of hurts.....and as Shakespeare said..Give thy thoughts no tongue...
Eileen
>
>
> I think the Queen is a vigorous and dedicated woman who carries her years well. I am sure she would never abdicate â€" that would go against the vow she made as a young lady to spend her life in faithful service carrying out her role. In the case of Charles, I think it’s much more likely that he will be much the same as Edward VII â€" assuming the throne at a rather advanced age, Edward did not reign for very long. I don’t think the monarchy needs a really young king and queen â€" it benefits just as much from having all the collateral and lineal descendants able to stand in and assume many of the duties of the monarch, like sponsoring the various charitable causes, which as far as I know they all do. Once William assumes the throne, his life will no longer be his own (nor will Kate’s be hers), to an even greater degree than is the case right now.
>
>
>
> Besides, based on what I have seen since the marriage of Charles and Camilla, I think there has been a swing in public opinion on all matters concerning the monarchy, including greater satisfaction with Charles and even Camilla. Commentators have made it clear that it is Camilla who took Katherine in tow as a mentor to educate about the ways of being a royal. I seem to recall there are also signs that the Queen has accepted her as well (holiday invitations to Balmoral or some such??)
>
>
>
> TTFN J
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne....here is a link to a Daily Mail article covering the question of Camilla becoming Queen....Its quite interesting....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
>
> Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>An excellent post Johanne...
Regarding Camilla....Time heals a lot of hurts.....and as Shakespeare said..Give thy thoughts no tongue...
Eileen
>
>
> I think the Queen is a vigorous and dedicated woman who carries her years well. I am sure she would never abdicate â€" that would go against the vow she made as a young lady to spend her life in faithful service carrying out her role. In the case of Charles, I think it’s much more likely that he will be much the same as Edward VII â€" assuming the throne at a rather advanced age, Edward did not reign for very long. I don’t think the monarchy needs a really young king and queen â€" it benefits just as much from having all the collateral and lineal descendants able to stand in and assume many of the duties of the monarch, like sponsoring the various charitable causes, which as far as I know they all do. Once William assumes the throne, his life will no longer be his own (nor will Kate’s be hers), to an even greater degree than is the case right now.
>
>
>
> Besides, based on what I have seen since the marriage of Charles and Camilla, I think there has been a swing in public opinion on all matters concerning the monarchy, including greater satisfaction with Charles and even Camilla. Commentators have made it clear that it is Camilla who took Katherine in tow as a mentor to educate about the ways of being a royal. I seem to recall there are also signs that the Queen has accepted her as well (holiday invitations to Balmoral or some such??)
>
>
>
> TTFN J
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of EileenB
> Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:28 AM
> To:
> Subject: now morganatic marriage (was Re: Royal Prerogative, etc.)
>
>
>
>
>
> Johanne....here is a link to a Daily Mail article covering the question of Camilla becoming Queen....Its quite interesting....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331296/Camilla-Queen-Charles-breaks-year-silence-future-role-second-wife.html
>
> Another question...should the Queen live as long as her mother did (101) and not abdicate which is something she has said she will never do, would that leave Charles at an age where maybe he did not want to become King any longer and pass it over to William and Kate...Charles is now 64.....He could be well into his 70s then....?
> Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-14 17:58:37
I think it was the fact that she had two living husbands which was a big stumbling block.
perhaps he didn't want to use it.
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
perhaps he didn't want to use it.
at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
--- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
To:
Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
--- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To: "" <>
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> > >
>
> > > cheers,
>
> > > Marianne
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
2012-10-14 18:35:28
Hi Pamela...after I posted that message someone replied that the RP could not have been used in personal matters any any case...I get the impression...and I may be wrong...that Edward really didnt want to be king....knuckle down to it as it were....
Bertie was, like Richard, catapulted into it. He wept on his mother's shoulder....Still all turned out well in the end....
Eileen
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> perhaps he didn't want to use it.Â
>
>
> at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
>
> it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
>
> he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To:
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
>
> Â
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ÂÂ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> >
>
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> >
>
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > > > Marianne
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bertie was, like Richard, catapulted into it. He wept on his mother's shoulder....Still all turned out well in the end....
Eileen
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> perhaps he didn't want to use it.Â
>
>
> at the time, the people could accept he would marry a divoriced woman, but they didn't like that she was american. or else it was the nobles and the other way around.
>
> it makes no difference really. he was strongly advised that the people and the lords would not accept the marriage for the above reasons. to have used the perogative would have caused a massive call for him to give up the throne. so..all in all. you win some and you lose some.
>
> he did end up being nicely "taken care of" for the remainder of his life.
>
> --- On Fri, 10/12/12, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> Subject: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
> To:
> Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 2:54 PM
>
> Â
>
> That's an interesting one. The royal perogative was little use to Edward Vlll when he was not allowed to marry the woman he loved....He had to choose between Mrs Simpson and abdication....
>
> --- In , fayre rose <fayreroze@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > a foolishly brave person. the queen is intelligent and informed. she would not use the royal perogative unwisely.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Fri, 10/12/12, George Butterfield <gbutterf1@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > From: George Butterfield <gbutterf1@>
>
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Foundation's petition for burial in York
>
> > To: "" <>
>
> > Received: Friday, October 12, 2012, 11:17 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ÂÂ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > True however it would be a brave man who disregards the Queens requests
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sent from my iPhone
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 11:11 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --- In , Dr M M Gilchrist <docm@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > But even with the Church of England, the Queen is basically just
>
> >
>
> > > > there to rubber-stamp what the Archbishop of Canterbury and his bunch
>
> >
>
> > > > say, just as she's only there to rubber-stamp whatever Parliament says.
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > cheers,
>
> >
>
> > > > Marianne
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.