RICHARD...

Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>
Katy:

Could you give us a link to the article?

Katy

Just read in the Daily Mail comments section that it is "an open secret" at Channel 4 that the remains included a piece of jewelry with "the royal crest." A white boar pin? Maire.

--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> Katy:
>
> Could you give us a link to the article?
>
> Katy
>

Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
Paul

Paul

On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:

> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

For what it may be worth, The Telegraph is reporting it too. Maire.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
> Paul
>
> Paul
>
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

Well we all knew that didn't we?  (And if it's in the DM, it MUST be true ......)
 
What a great pre-Christmas present.
 
Liz


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 15:55
Subject: RICHARD...

 
Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen

Sorry Katy..tis here....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248448/Human-remains-Leicester-car-park-DO-belong-Richard-III--scientists-holding-findings-Channel-Four-documentary-aired-claims-insider.html
Eileen


--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well we all knew that didn't we?  (And if it's in the DM, it MUST be true ......)
>  
> What a great pre-Christmas present.
>  
> Liz
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 15:55
> Subject: RICHARD...
>
>  
> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lol..Paul...Look..I will meet with you for coffee in Leicester when we both go to pay our respects to our hero....Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
> Paul
>
> Paul
>
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.

I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.

To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."

It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.

~Wednesday

Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
>
> To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
>
> It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
>
> ~Wednesday
>

The eyes in the portrait are blue - is that correct??

On 15 December 2012 14:18, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> Sorry Katy..tis here....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248448/Human-remains-Leicester-car-park-DO-belong-Richard-III--scientists-holding-findings-Channel-Four-documentary-aired-claims-insider.html
> Eileen
>
> --- In , liz williams
> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well we all knew that didn't we?ý (And if it's in the DM, it MUST be
> true ......)
> > ý
> > What a great pre-Christmas present.
> > ý
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 15:55
> > Subject: RICHARD...
> >
> > ý
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified
> as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired
> on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>



--
Lisa
The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329

www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
<https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>

I see it as blue- grey........

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 15, 2012, at 2:04 PM, "Lisa @ The Antiques Boutique" <lisa.holtjones@...> wrote:

> The eyes in the portrait are blue - is that correct??
>
> On 15 December 2012 14:18, EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Sorry Katy..tis here....
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248448/Human-remains-Leicester-car-park-DO-belong-Richard-III--scientists-holding-findings-Channel-Four-documentary-aired-claims-insider.html
>> Eileen
>>
>> --- In , liz williams
>> <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well we all knew that didn't we? (And if it's in the DM, it MUST be
>> true ......)
>>> Â
>>> What a great pre-Christmas present.
>>> Â
>>> Liz
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>>> To:
>>> Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 15:55
>>> Subject: RICHARD...
>>>
>>> Â
>>> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified
>> as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired
>> on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> Lisa
> The Antiques Boutique & Ceramic Restoration/Conservation Services
> Baddeck, Nova Scotia.
> Tel: 902 295 9013 / 1329
>
> www.Antiques-Boutique.com <http://www.antiques-boutique.com/>
> Like us on *www.facebook.com/TheAntiquesBoutique*
> View our Ceramic Restoration Photos
> <https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398988066799604.100100.108554399176307&type=1&l=cd560aff9f>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

*Sigh* - another jump gun, then? My nerves can't take much more!

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: RICHARD...


 
Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
Paul

Paul

On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:

> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Service to King Henry I assume

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 15, 2012, at 1:25 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:

> On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
>
> To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
>
> It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
>
> ~Wednesday
>
>

Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276

This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."

It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.

~Weds

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> >
> > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> >
> > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> >
> > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
> >
>

Thanks Wednesday....That is a bit clearer...Ooooooooooops Paul will have my guts for garters.....Eileen....:0)

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276
>
> This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."
>
> It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> > >
> > > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> > >
> > > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> > >
> > > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
> > >
> >
>

I still think its Richard though....Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Wednesday....That is a bit clearer...Ooooooooooops Paul will have my guts for garters.....Eileen....:0)
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276
> >
> > This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."
> >
> > It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> > > >
> > > > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> > > >
> > > > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> > > >
> > > > ~Wednesday
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi, Eileen -
OK, FM is not very reliable. OTOH, they got their report fm the Telegraph, and that's the one I posted the link to. Sorry Judy and anyone else who hates gossipy reports but I believe in passing on any news. Like FoxNews, "I report - you decide." (Grin)
If I didn't send it on fyi, wouldn't I be just as guilty of the "I know something you don't know" phenomenon? I'd rather share the latest w/the all true servants of the king.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: EileenB
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 19:40:12 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: RICHARD...

I still think its Richard though....Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Wednesday....That is a bit clearer...Ooooooooooops Paul will have my guts for garters.....Eileen....:0)
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276
> >
> > This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."
> >
> > It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> > > >
> > > > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> > > >
> > > > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> > > >
> > > > ~Wednesday
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi, Johanne,

Yes, please...share all of the news. How else are we to know the modern machinations of medieval matters regarding the king?

I'm sorry I got snippy -- wasn't at you. Truly.

~Weds


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Eileen -
> OK, FM is not very reliable. OTOH, they got their report fm the Telegraph, and that's the one I posted the link to. Sorry Judy and anyone else who hates gossipy reports but I believe in passing on any news. Like FoxNews, "I report - you decide." (Grin)
> If I didn't send it on fyi, wouldn't I be just as guilty of the "I know something you don't know" phenomenon? I'd rather share the latest w/the all true servants of the king.
> Loyaulte me lie,
> Johanne

Henry who?


--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Service to King Henry I assume

I like how fast the UoL responds with this statement to various rather confusing articles like the one from dailymail.

Official Statement of the University of Leicester:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2012/december/statement

Renate


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>

Thanks for posting the link to the official press release, Renate. Of course as I read the info in the DM and Telegraph and this press release, it is still possible that some significant personal article was found with him. Personally, tho I would love to see such a precious artifact, I doubt that the rumour is true, as we have always heard that the body was despoiled and that it was brought into Leicester completely nude. Therefore it's highly unlikely that any item of intrinsic worth would have been left with the body - unless the brothers might have left it with the body for the specific purpose of aiding in identification in time to come. That would be a wonderful thought.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: walkerjaneway
Sent: 15 Dec 2012 21:22:41 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: RICHARD... - Official Statement of the University of Leicester

I like how fast the UoL responds with this statement to various rather confusing articles like the one from dailymail.

Official Statement of the University of Leicester:
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2012/december/statement

Renate


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>

Hi, Johanne! My thought when I read the comment section of the Daily Mail was that the monks of Greyfriars may have buried him with a symbol of his reign - not totally unlike the final scene in "We Speak No Treason." But then I'm a romantic by nature and would love that that were true. Hope you're enjoying Barbados! Maire.

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for posting the link to the official press release, Renate. Of course as I read the info in the DM and Telegraph and this press release, it is still possible that some significant personal article was found with him. Personally, tho I would love to see such a precious artifact, I doubt that the rumour is true, as we have always heard that the body was despoiled and that it was brought into Leicester completely nude. Therefore it's highly unlikely that any item of intrinsic worth would have been left with the body - unless the brothers might have left it with the body for the specific purpose of aiding in identification in time to come. That would be a wonderful thought.
> Loyaulte me lie,
> Johanne
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: walkerjaneway
> Sent: 15 Dec 2012 21:22:41 GMT
> To:
> Subject: Re: RICHARD... - Official Statement of the University of Leicester
>
> I like how fast the UoL responds with this statement to various rather confusing articles like the one from dailymail.
>
> Official Statement of the University of Leicester:
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2012/december/statement
>
> Renate
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

It's a date!
Paul

On 15 Dec 2012, at 18:20, EileenB wrote:

> Lol..Paul...Look..I will meet with you for coffee in Leicester when we both go to pay our respects to our hero....Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
>> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
>> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Rumour travels a hundred miles while truth is pulling on it's hose!
Paul


On 15 Dec 2012, at 19:31, wednesday_mc wrote:

> Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276
>
> This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."
>
> It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
>>
>> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>>
>>> On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
>>>
>>> I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
>>>
>>> To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
>>>
>>> It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
>>>
>>> ~Wednesday
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I have never had any doubt that it is.
Paul

On 15 Dec 2012, at 19:40, EileenB wrote:

> I still think its Richard though....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Wednesday....That is a bit clearer...Ooooooooooops Paul will have my guts for garters.....Eileen....:0)
>>
>> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Eileen...the BBC News site seems to have a more balanced article. Article here:
>>>
>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-20740276
>>>
>>> This article contradicts some details of the jump-the-gun write-ups. Richard Taylor, from the University of Leicester, specifically says, "It is completely unfair to say we are holding back information. We have no legal agreement with Channel 4 and the university will not benefit financially from the documentary."
>>>
>>> It looks like gossip vs. fact again, much the same as it's been for 500 years.
>>>
>>> ~Weds
>>>
>>> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Wendy...possibly a deal was made with Channel 4 to get them to agree to make the programme and, I dont know, but possible some funding..It seems from the article that some of the dig members are rather miffed with all the secrecy themselves....Possibly there is not a thing they can do about it...Eileen
>>>>
>>>> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~Wednesday
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air. If some symbol - a badge, as is suggested - found with the remains is helping them confirm it is Richard, the public ought to know. And for those of us who are very deeply unhappy with the idea of reburial in Leicester, it all feels like a 'fait accompli' on the part of those in on the whole set of events, that knowledge about the remains is being withheld, and decisions are, I consider, being set in stone that re-interment happens there regardless of other opinions on the matter. I would like to know what knowledge the Society has right now, and also what role it is playing in helping determine where the remains should finally lie.

If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
>
> I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
>
> To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
>
> It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
>
> ~Wednesday
>

I think that is the real reason a lot of people object to Leicester - they don't think it's "famous" enought but frankly that is a plus for me.  It will be Richard's church and no one else's.  Apart from the fact that the Abbey is associated with the Tudors it is choc-a-bloc with poets and the like as well as kings of England.  There simply isn't room for him.   I'm not so sure about the space issue at York as I have never been there
 
 
I for one would much rather Richard was at Leicester with a tomb he deserves than shoved in some corner of a more famous church, simply because it IS famous.
 

________________________________
From: colyngbourne
If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.

I am not from UK so not attached to any place in particular as long as it befits a king.
What are the arguments for the different sites? York seems like a logical choice though. Don't you think? Because of his close ties to the town and if he made it known that's where he Wanted to be buried.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:04 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

> I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air. If some symbol - a badge, as is suggested - found with the remains is helping them confirm it is Richard, the public ought to know. And for those of us who are very deeply unhappy with the idea of reburial in Leicester, it all feels like a 'fait accompli' on the part of those in on the whole set of events, that knowledge about the remains is being withheld, and decisions are, I consider, being set in stone that re-interment happens there regardless of other opinions on the matter. I would like to know what knowledge the Society has right now, and also what role it is playing in helping determine where the remains should finally lie.
>
> If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> >
> > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> >
> > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> >
> > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
> >
>
>

________________________________
From: liz williams 


I think that is the real reason a lot of people object to Leicester - they don't think it's "famous" enought but frankly that is a plus for me.  It will be Richard's church and no one else's.  Apart from the fact that the Abbey is associated with the Tudors it is choc-a-bloc with poets and the like as well as kings of England.  There simply isn't room for him.   I'm not so sure about the space issue at York as I have never been there
 
 
I for one would much rather Richard was at Leicester with a tomb he deserves than shoved in some corner of a more famous church, simply because it IS famous.

Pamela responds:

I couldn't agree more.  Richard, reburied in Leicester, will be the only King in the Cathedral and by far the most famous person buried there.  There is no way he could be 'lost' among others which would be the case in other places.
 

________________________________
From: colyngbourne
If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.

When it comes to affairs of State and logical choice the name Government is probably a oxymoron in most countries
To quote "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 16, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Richard Yahoo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> I am not from UK so not attached to any place in particular as long as it befits a king.
> What are the arguments for the different sites? York seems like a logical choice though. Don't you think? Because of his close ties to the town and if he made it known that's where he Wanted to be buried.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:04 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air. If some symbol - a badge, as is suggested - found with the remains is helping them confirm it is Richard, the public ought to know. And for those of us who are very deeply unhappy with the idea of reburial in Leicester, it all feels like a 'fait accompli' on the part of those in on the whole set of events, that knowledge about the remains is being withheld, and decisions are, I consider, being set in stone that re-interment happens there regardless of other opinions on the matter. I would like to know what knowledge the Society has right now, and also what role it is playing in helping determine where the remains should finally lie.
> >
> > If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> > >
> > > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> > >
> > > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> > >
> > > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> > >
> > > ~Wednesday
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Yes....and another thing too...Leicester Cathedral has been the place where they have a memorial to him...But in any case, although yes it is true that Richard wished to be buried in York Minster they have not exactly been clamouring to give him a burial place...Eileen
On 16 Dec 2012, at 15:48, Pamela Furmidge wrote:

>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams
>
> I think that is the real reason a lot of people object to Leicester - they don't think it's "famous" enought but frankly that is a plus for me. It will be Richard's church and no one else's. Apart from the fact that the Abbey is associated with the Tudors it is choc-a-bloc with poets and the like as well as kings of England. There simply isn't room for him. I'm not so sure about the space issue at York as I have never been there
>
>
> I for one would much rather Richard was at Leicester with a tomb he deserves than shoved in some corner of a more famous church, simply because it IS famous.
>
> Pamela responds:
>
> I couldn't agree more. Richard, reburied in Leicester, will be the only King in the Cathedral and by far the most famous person buried there. There is no way he could be 'lost' among others which would be the case in other places.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne
> If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air.

Katy:

The thing is, the producers of the TV program or the parent network may have provided vital funding to the project on the condition that they be able to "break" the news. I'm not familiar with how things work in the UK, but such is often the case in the US. I suspect that was the situation regarding a number of recent scientific endeavors such as the excavation of the well-preserved baby mammoth in Russia, the exhumation and autopsy of the "Ice Man" of the Alps, and so on.

Katy

Hi, Katy & Everyone!
My possibly fallible recollection is that the university had previously acknowledged three funding sources - the town, the university, and the RIII Society. So - I would be interested to know the source of your info. In its statement of yesterday the university definitely denied any quid pro quo.
TTFN (smile)
Loyaulte me lie,
Johann

-----Original Message-----

From: oregon_katy
Sent: 16 Dec 2012 17:03:38 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: RICHARD...



--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air.

Katy:

The thing is, the producers of the TV program or the parent network may have provided vital funding to the project on the condition that they be able to "break" the news. I'm not familiar with how things work in the UK, but such is often the case in the US. I suspect that was the situation regarding a number of recent scientific endeavors such as the excavation of the well-preserved baby mammoth in Russia, the exhumation and autopsy of the "Ice Man" of the Alps, and so on.

Katy

Hi, Ishita and Liz -
4th time I've tried to get replies off to your emails. I hope this time works!
Like you, Ishita, being North American, I don't have any particular dog in this hunt. But I would be upset if they reburied Richard in the Abbey, where according to their lights he would only be a footnote.
Other than that I think either Leicester or York would be a fitting setting.
The topic of where Richard wanted to be buried has come up before, and I think the conclusion was much like Richard's (non) designation of an official heir after the death of Edward of Middleham. That is, there is an assumption that Richard wanted to be buried in York because he endowed a chantry chapel there, but he also endowed a chantry chapel in Cambridge. In addition, other possible places might have been the Abbey, because of Anne, Fotheringhay, or Windsor. I guess it's fair to say that he wouldn't have picked Leicester, but they really want him there, it's already a centre of Ricardian activities, espy because of Bosworth, and it is a central location. I think and hope they will treat the connection with Richard with the seriousness it deserves.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne


-----Original Message-----

From: Richard Yahoo
Sent: 16 Dec 2012 15:21:44 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD...

I am not from UK so not attached to any place in particular as long as it befits a king.
What are the arguments for the different sites? York seems like a logical choice though. Don't you think? Because of his close ties to the town and if he made it known that's where he Wanted to be buried.

Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com

On Dec 16, 2012, at 9:04 AM, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

> I consider that it has been pretty much known for a while, by those involved in the discovery, that it is Richard and DNA testing will only add a little to the knowledge they already have. I agree it is wrong and also undignified that they are holding back the news until the TV programme can air. If some symbol - a badge, as is suggested - found with the remains is helping them confirm it is Richard, the public ought to know. And for those of us who are very deeply unhappy with the idea of reburial in Leicester, it all feels like a 'fait accompli' on the part of those in on the whole set of events, that knowledge about the remains is being withheld, and decisions are, I consider, being set in stone that re-interment happens there regardless of other opinions on the matter. I would like to know what knowledge the Society has right now, and also what role it is playing in helping determine where the remains should finally lie.
>
> If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
> >
> > On one hand, I'm thrilled that the British media are confirming the remains are Richard's. On the other, I can't help but feel we're being tortured with dribbles of gossipy rumors.
> >
> > I'm sure there are lots of open secrets in the inner circle of Channel 4, the inner circle of the Society, and the inner circle in Leicester. But for any of them to release this sort of, "It's Richard, and we know lots of things you don't know, and you can't know until the public knows," is just mean.
> >
> > To me, it's akin to a preening fan meeting a celebrity and then gushing, "I had a precious and spiritual time with him , but the experience was so precious and spiritual I just can't share."
> >
> > It's mean. It's also unprofessional. I guess I expected better behavior from those still in service to the King.
> >
> > ~Wednesday
> >
>
>

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Katy & Everyone!
> My possibly fallible recollection is that the university had previously acknowledged three funding sources - the town, the university, and the RIII Society. So - I would be interested to know the source of your info. In its statement of yesterday the university definitely denied any quid pro quo.
> TTFN (smile)
> Loyaulte me lie,
> Johann

Katy:

I have no info regarding any TV funding of the dig -- I was just speculating.

Katy

Let me ask again, where is it stated, which document, saying Richard wanted to be buried in York, after he became king. Or for that matter, before. As Duke of Gloucester and lord of the North that would be a logical choice, but as king the game changed completely, and his southern nobles and gentry would have taken it as a slap in the face when he was trying to get them on board. This he would never have even considered.
Paul

On 16 Dec 2012, at 16:49, eileen bates wrote:

> Yes....and another thing too...Leicester Cathedral has been the place where they have a memorial to him...But in any case, although yes it is true that Richard wished to be buried in York Minster they have not exactly been clamouring to give him a burial place...Eileen
> On 16 Dec 2012, at 15:48, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: liz williams
>>
>> I think that is the real reason a lot of people object to Leicester - they don't think it's "famous" enought but frankly that is a plus for me. It will be Richard's church and no one else's. Apart from the fact that the Abbey is associated with the Tudors it is choc-a-bloc with poets and the like as well as kings of England. There simply isn't room for him. I'm not so sure about the space issue at York as I have never been there
>>
>>
>> I for one would much rather Richard was at Leicester with a tomb he deserves than shoved in some corner of a more famous church, simply because it IS famous.
>>
>> Pamela responds:
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. Richard, reburied in Leicester, will be the only King in the Cathedral and by far the most famous person buried there. There is no way he could be 'lost' among others which would be the case in other places.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: colyngbourne
>> If these were the lost remains of Eliz 1st, there would be a national campaign for her not to be re-interred in the church closest to where she was found, but in some significant national monument.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

I'll buy the coffee, you guys. I will even spring for the custard tarts.

Judy
 
Loyaulte me lie


________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: RICHARD...


 
It's a date!
Paul

On 15 Dec 2012, at 18:20, EileenB wrote:

> Lol..Paul...Look..I will meet with you for coffee in Leicester when we both go to pay our respects to our hero....Eileen
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
>> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
>> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
>> Paul
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
>>
>>> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Richard Liveth Yet!
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Richard Liveth Yet!

Judy:
With an offer like that, its almost worth the 3k it would cost me to get a coffee in Leicester!
G
On Dec 16, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:

> I'll buy the coffee, you guys. I will even spring for the custard tarts.
>
> Judy
>
> Loyaulte me lie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:48 AM
> Subject: Re: RICHARD...
>
>
>
> It's a date!
> Paul
>
> On 15 Dec 2012, at 18:20, EileenB wrote:
>
> > Lol..Paul...Look..I will meet with you for coffee in Leicester when we both go to pay our respects to our hero....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
> >> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
> >> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>
>
>
>

Hi all,
I suspect this is probably right but I am a bit puzzled, ie if they are not announcing it, how has the Daily Mail know?
Marie



--- In , "oregon_katy" <oregon_katy@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> Katy:
>
> Could you give us a link to the article?
>
> Katy
>

Marie responds,
Sound like nothing new, then, just that there was enough evidence when the body was found to make it fairly clear it was Richard but the team are still waiting on the results of the DNA tests.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Sorry Katy..tis here....
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248448/Human-remains-Leicester-car-park-DO-belong-Richard-III--scientists-holding-findings-Channel-Four-documentary-aired-claims-insider.html
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Well we all knew that didn't we?  (And if it's in the DM, it MUST be true ......)
> >  
> > What a great pre-Christmas present.
> >  
> > Liz
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, 15 December 2012, 15:55
> > Subject: RICHARD...
> >
> >  
> > Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

The DM doesn't need to "know" something is true to print it in their paper  I'm afraid. 
 
Has a transmission date been announced for the programme yet?
 
Liz
 
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 1:38
Subject: Re: RICHARD...

 

Hi all,
I suspect this is probably right but I am a bit puzzled, ie if they are not announcing it, how has the Daily Mail know?
Marie

--->



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (40)
Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Files 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

Hi, Liz!
Remember - the DM got it fm the Telegraph, so that makes the report more reliable, may-be. (Lol).

Not sure if they've announced a date for the program, but I saw an article yesterday which said that the concert of Ricardian recorder music which is sched for Jan 11 is being held in conjunction with a prestigious mtg of the Society of Historical Archeology being held in Leicester - only the second time the Society has met outside the US. I think it's a logical inference that there will be a scholarly paper and or report presented at that time. Perhaps the documentary will also be presented at that time.
Loyaulte me lie,
Johanne

-----Original Message-----

From: liz williams
Sent: 17 Dec 2012 11:59:38 GMT
To:
Subject: Re: Re: RICHARD...

The DM doesn't need to "know" something is true to print it in their paper I'm afraid.

Has a transmission date been announced for the programme yet?

Liz

From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Monday, 17 December 2012, 1:38
Subject: Re: RICHARD...



Hi all,
I suspect this is probably right but I am a bit puzzled, ie if they are not announcing it, how has the Daily Mail know?
Marie

--->



Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (40)
Recent Activity: * New Members 1 * New Files 1
Visit Your Group

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback
.

I looooooove custard tarts....Eileen

--- In , George Butterfield <gbutterf1@...> wrote:
>
> Judy:
> With an offer like that, its almost worth the 3k it would cost me to get a coffee in Leicester!
> G
> On Dec 16, 2012, at 4:05 PM, Judy Thomson <judygerard.thomson@...> wrote:
>
> > I'll buy the coffee, you guys. I will even spring for the custard tarts.
> >
> > Judy
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:48 AM
> > Subject: Re: RICHARD...
> >
> >
> >
> > It's a date!
> > Paul
> >
> > On 15 Dec 2012, at 18:20, EileenB wrote:
> >
> > > Lol..Paul...Look..I will meet with you for coffee in Leicester when we both go to pay our respects to our hero....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Well we all believe every word the Daily Mail publishes don't we?!!!
> > >> Obviously they are not announcing it, so tell the Daily Mail!
> > >> Really Eileen. You should know better! :-)
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> Paul
> > >>
> > >> On 15 Dec 2012, at 15:55, EileenB wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Just read in the Daily Mail online that the remains have been identified as Richard's but they are not announcing it until the documentary is aired on Channel 4 TV. Eileen
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ------------------------------------
> > >>>
> > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Richard Liveth Yet!
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Richard Liveth Yet!
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>