Richard III Exhumation

Dear Sirs,

Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then it was a serious breach of the law.

David
Redcar

Of course they did!



________________________________
From: charliechan82w <suhbyungdoh@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013, 21:01
Subject: Richard III Exhumation

 
Dear Sirs,

Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then it was a serious breach of the law.

David
Redcar

Yes because it is this exhumation law that has decided where the reburial must happen. Between them, the Society, Leicester University, Channel Four and the others will definitely have realised this.

----- Original Message -----
From: charliechan82w
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:01 PM
Subject: Richard III Exhumation



Dear Sirs,

Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then it was a serious breach of the law.

David
Redcar

Personnally, I find it so moving that people at the Richard the Third Society on Facebook are fighting for Richard's remains. How touching for those of us who have had faith in this fine man for years. This has been a great day for me! David Starkey and Alison Weir: eat your heart out! Maire.

--- In , "Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Yes because it is this exhumation law that has decided where the reburial must happen. Between them, the Society, Leicester University, Channel Four and the others will definitely have realised this.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: charliechan82w
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 9:01 PM
> Subject: Richard III Exhumation
>
>
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then it was a serious breach of the law.
>
> David
> Redcar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.

Sent from my iPad

Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.

By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.



--- In , pidgesherry@... wrote:
>
> It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
 

From: charliechan82w <suhbyungdoh@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation

 
Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.

By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
>
> It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:

> We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
>
>
> From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
>
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>
>
>

My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite.  Not any more though, I've had enough.

From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:

> We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> 
>
> From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
> 
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>
>
>

I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?

--- In , liz williams wrote:
>
> My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite.  Not any more though, I've had enough.
>
> From: eileen bates
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
> Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
>
> > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > 
> >
> > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> >
> > 
> > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> >
> > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > >
> > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've been told by people involved that there were no end of permissions to be got, and they did the whole thing properly. It took a considerable amount of time.
Marie

--- In , "charliechan82w" wrote:
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then it was a serious breach of the law.
>
> David
> Redcar
>

You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
>
> --- In , liz williams wrote:
> >
> > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite.  Not any more though, I've had enough.
> >
> > From: eileen bates
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> >
> > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> >
> > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > 
> > >
> > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > >
> > > 
> > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > >
> > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Perhaps one for Neil if goes on - thought so yesterday



________________________________
From: eileen bates <eileenbates147@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:

> We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> 
>
> From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
> 
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>
>
>







------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa

Eileen


--- In , "EileenB" wrote:
>
> You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> >
> > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite.  Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > >
> > > From: eileen bates
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > >
> > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic.  If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

On 6 Feb 2013, at 10:11, charliechan82w wrote:

> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In , pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>

David

No you idiot the professional archeologists just went in to a council owned
car park probably in the middle of the night so no one would see or hear the
6000 lb. backhoe they used, then they roughly grabbed anything they could
from the 65ft hole they had dug.

Please give them a break and think prior to sending out an email

Prior to any excavation all paperwork from local government to national has
to be done, that's one of the reasons why excavation is expensive and time
consuming over and above the archeology and results, do you honestly think
that the home office or those responsible were not made aware!

George



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of charliechan82w
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:02 PM
To:
Subject: Richard III Exhumation





Dear Sirs,

Prior to the exhumation of Richard III Bones did you obtain a certificate of
Exhumation from the Home Office prior to the bones being moved ? If not then
it was a serious breach of the law.

David
Redcar

Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa

Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
>
> You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > >
> > > From: eileen bates
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > >
> > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > >
> > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Unfortunately, that kind of rubbish sells. Our dying US newspapers are woefully short on journalistic standards, two sources, fact checking, etc.. And that is not to mention grammar and punctuation. My English teachers would be furious, and old time newspaper editors would be too!
The rambler.....

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of mairemulholland
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 9:24 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation



I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________
 mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...> wrote:


 
I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.
Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Someone really should have primed that woman - I don't think she realised what she was saying to the 'lay' ear. And that was after months' before she'd announced (it was her, wasn't it)  scoliosis wasn't a hunchback. For what it's worth I think C4 were covering their backs in case it turned out not to be him and were making the alternative 'reality' show on PL (and us!). Quite a bit of it showing an understandably upset P could have been cut and more time given to the analysis, of which I'd hope to learn a lot more.  H



________________________________
From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:37
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

 



________________________________
 mairemulholland mairemulholland@...> wrote:

 
I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.
Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Pamela & Maire 

Someone (either Jo Appleby or Lin Foxhall) in one of the articles I quoted before the announcement (sometime early last week, I think it was) said she was a bit concerned about the reaction of the members of the Society when they all found out about the scoliosis. My reaction at the time was that she was underestimating the loyalty of Ricardians and that we were pretty well prepared for that announcement.



However, it's quite another matter to discover that the scientific team were speaking so . . . casually? Cavalierly? Carelessly? About a matter which is of such potential significance in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine that Philippa L. may well have expressed her unhappiness (even if off-camera?) regarding the use of the term, and perhaps that is what inspired the person to make the comment about possible adverse reactions of Ricardians. But the adverse reaction is not to the King!! It's using terms which, firstly aren't scientific, and secondly aren't bloody accurate!!! Sheesh!!!



Do you think it's worth petitioning somebody for a clarification conference? Perhaps a special slot could be arranged at the March 2 conference. Or at least an official statement of clarification from the archeological team?



I guarantee that we (and Richard's memory) are best served if we control our emotional reaction, but notice I'm not the best example of putting into practice what I preach.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne







~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation







________________________________
mairemulholland mairemulholland@... <mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> > wrote:


I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

I think a physician dealing in scoliosis, as well as a forensic scientist should clarify and explain exactly what the disease is, its frequency, etc. We also have to remember how the people of the 15th century felt about illness. Little was known, by anyone, and health of any sort was not a major area of stuffy. You lived or you died. If you were a leper, a hunchback, had spots, whatever.....you were doomed. Cruel terms were used, and medical quackery was the rule of the day.

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:04 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Re: Richard III Exhumation



Hi, Pamela & Maire -

Someone (either Jo Appleby or Lin Foxhall) in one of the articles I quoted before the announcement (sometime early last week, I think it was) said she was a bit concerned about the reaction of the members of the Society when they all found out about the scoliosis. My reaction at the time was that she was underestimating the loyalty of Ricardians and that we were pretty well prepared for that announcement.

However, it's quite another matter to discover that the scientific team were speaking so . . . casually? Cavalierly? Carelessly? About a matter which is of such potential significance in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine that Philippa L. may well have expressed her unhappiness (even if off-camera?) regarding the use of the term, and perhaps that is what inspired the person to make the comment about possible adverse reactions of Ricardians. But the adverse reaction is not to the King!! It's using terms which, firstly aren't scientific, and secondly aren't bloody accurate!!! Sheesh!!!

Do you think it's worth petitioning somebody for a "clarification conference"? Perhaps a special slot could be arranged at the March 2 conference. Or at least an official statement of clarification from the archeological team?

I guarantee that we (and Richard's memory) are best served if we control our emotional reaction, but notice I'm not the best example of putting into practice what I preach.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:38 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

________________________________
mairemulholland mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

I meant study, not stuffy. My spell checker and my fingers are at odds.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:10 AM, "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain@...>> wrote:



I think a physician dealing in scoliosis, as well as a forensic scientist should clarify and explain exactly what the disease is, its frequency, etc. We also have to remember how the people of the 15th century felt about illness. Little was known, by anyone, and health of any sort was not a major area of stuffy. You lived or you died. If you were a leper, a hunchback, had spots, whatever.....you were doomed. Cruel terms were used, and medical quackery was the rule of the day.

________________________________
From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Johanne Tournier
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 10:04 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: Re: Richard III Exhumation

Hi, Pamela & Maire -

Someone (either Jo Appleby or Lin Foxhall) in one of the articles I quoted before the announcement (sometime early last week, I think it was) said she was a bit concerned about the reaction of the members of the Society when they all found out about the scoliosis. My reaction at the time was that she was underestimating the loyalty of Ricardians and that we were pretty well prepared for that announcement.

However, it's quite another matter to discover that the scientific team were speaking so . . . casually? Cavalierly? Carelessly? About a matter which is of such potential significance in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine that Philippa L. may well have expressed her unhappiness (even if off-camera?) regarding the use of the term, and perhaps that is what inspired the person to make the comment about possible adverse reactions of Ricardians. But the adverse reaction is not to the King!! It's using terms which, firstly aren't scientific, and secondly aren't bloody accurate!!! Sheesh!!!

Do you think it's worth petitioning somebody for a "clarification conference"? Perhaps a special slot could be arranged at the March 2 conference. Or at least an official statement of clarification from the archeological team?

I guarantee that we (and Richard's memory) are best served if we control our emotional reaction, but notice I'm not the best example of putting into practice what I preach.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...<mailto:jltournier60%40hotmail.com>

or jltournier@...<mailto:jltournier%40xcountry.tv>

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:38 AM
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

________________________________
mairemulholland mairemulholland@...<mailto:mairemulholland%40yahoo.com> > wrote:

I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

Pamela...definitely bones are in the urn...and of course you will know there are photos of them. It is not an urn as in urn but more an oblong stone box...

As to what you say about it being difficult to extract DNS information because they are in an urn...I dont know...maybe someone can clarify that for us? Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

OK, bones Ina box.....now that might make it a lot easier. I was thinking about pieces of bones, or bones and ashes. Sorry.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 10:39 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Pamela...definitely bones are in the urn...and of course you will know there are photos of them. It is not an urn as in urn but more an oblong stone box...

As to what you say about it being difficult to extract DNS information because they are in an urn...I dont know...maybe someone can clarify that for us? Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
>
> On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
>
>
>
> Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com> , liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > >
> > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > >
> > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com> , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I'd back you on that Johanne I think it really does need explanation after the initial statement in September that the two conditions are different. I have to say I was surprised PL accepted it so readily but she was clearly upset and Farnaby no expert. Dare I say it but perhaps that's one moment where it could have done with a TR (or someone like him before I get shot down).


________________________________
From: Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 16:03
Subject: RE: Re: Richard III Exhumation

 

Hi, Pamela & Maire 

Someone (either Jo Appleby or Lin Foxhall) in one of the articles I quoted before the announcement (sometime early last week, I think it was) said she was a bit concerned about the reaction of the members of the Society when they all found out about the scoliosis. My reaction at the time was that she was underestimating the loyalty of Ricardians and that we were pretty well prepared for that announcement.

However, it's quite another matter to discover that the scientific team were speaking so . . . casually? Cavalierly? Carelessly? About a matter which is of such potential significance in the grand scheme of things. I can imagine that Philippa L. may well have expressed her unhappiness (even if off-camera?) regarding the use of the term, and perhaps that is what inspired the person to make the comment about possible adverse reactions of Ricardians. But the adverse reaction is not to the King!! It's using terms which, firstly aren't scientific, and secondly aren't bloody accurate!!! Sheesh!!!

Do you think it's worth petitioning somebody for a clarification conference? Perhaps a special slot could be arranged at the March 2 conference. Or at least an official statement of clarification from the archeological team?

I guarantee that we (and Richard's memory) are best served if we control our emotional reaction, but notice I'm not the best example of putting into practice what I preach.

Loyaulte me lie,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier

Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...

"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:38 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

________________________________
mairemulholland mairemulholland@... > wrote:

I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!

I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.

Me:

I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.

As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.

Charlie, umm, because we sometime have fun in this forum too? Did you expect us to be  a bunch of dry academician....?.




________________________________
From: charliechan82w <suhbyungdoh@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation


 
Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.

By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.

--- In , pidgesherry@... wrote:
>
> It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

Come on Ishita, you know we're a bunch of nutters, not dry academics :-)



________________________________
From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:02
Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation

 
Charlie, umm, because we sometime have fun in this forum too? Did you expect us to be  a bunch of dry academician....?.

________________________________
From: charliechan82w mailto:suhbyungdoh%40gmail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation


 
Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.

By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
>
> It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

:D!!!

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:35 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Come on Ishita, you know we're a bunch of nutters, not dry academics :-)
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo bandyoi@...>
> To: "" >
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 17:02
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
>
> Charlie, umm, because we sometime have fun in this forum too? Did you expect us to be a bunch of dry academician....?.
>
> ________________________________
> From: charliechan82w mailto:suhbyungdoh%40gmail.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
>
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

We like occasionally discussing things "irrelevant" to R3. It's fun. But I daresay anything can be made relevant to R3, as everything and everyone in the world is somehow related to everything and everyone else within five degrees." So if we play that game regarding Mirren and R3":

1. Helen Mirran co-starred with Ian McKellen in Strindberg's "Dance of Death" on Broadway.

2. Ian McKellen did an extremely unique film version of "Richard III."

Done in only two degrees, and I'm sure others here can connect the two in 100 other ways. It's a small world, even with 530 years between any subject and R3.

~Weds


--- In , "charliechan82w" wrote:
>
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.

Wednesday, I simply adore you and your thoughts.

On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:09 PM, "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...<mailto:wednesday.mac@...>> wrote:



We like occasionally discussing things "irrelevant" to R3. It's fun. But I daresay anything can be made relevant to R3, as everything and everyone in the world is somehow related to everything and everyone else within five degrees." So if we play that game regarding Mirren and R3":

1. Helen Mirran co-starred with Ian McKellen in Strindberg's "Dance of Death" on Broadway.

2. Ian McKellen did an extremely unique film version of "Richard III."

Done in only two degrees, and I'm sure others here can connect the two in 100 other ways. It's a small world, even with 530 years between any subject and R3.

~Weds

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "charliechan82w" wrote:
>
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.

Isahita
This "charleychann I believe was the same person who posted several times about getting permission to exhume R3 I believe he may well have a separate agenda from ours!
G
Sent from my iPad

On Feb 6, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> Charlie, umm, because we sometime have fun in this forum too? Did you expect us to be a bunch of dry academician....?.
>
> ________________________________
> From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@...>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
>
>
> Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
>
> By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
>
> --- In , pidgesherry@... wrote:
> >
> > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
>
>
>
>

The painting you refer to is by John Millais. I don't know who owns it but Andrew Lloyd Webber's collection of Pre-Raphaelites paintings tends to be more D G Rossetti based.
Elaine

--- In , Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> Someone really should have primed that woman - I don't think she realised what she was saying to the 'lay' ear. And that was after months' before she'd announced (it was her, wasn't it)  scoliosis wasn't a hunchback. For what it's worth I think C4 were covering their backs in case it turned out not to be him and were making the alternative 'reality' show on PL (and us!). Quite a bit of it showing an understandably upset P could have been cut and more time given to the analysis, of which I'd hope to learn a lot more.  H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: ""
> Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 15:37
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
>
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  mairemulholland mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>  
> I just read that dopey Daily Mail article - they are back to calling him a hunchback and insisting he murdered those two kids. It never ends!
>
> I'm just as sentimental about children as anyone else, but that pretty, mawkish Edwardian (or Victorian?) painting just keeps the story going. I wonder if Andrew Lloyd-Webber owns it since he has a real affinity for gooey pre-Raphaelite stuff. Maire.
> Me:
>
> I have been appalled at reading some of the entries on other forums, along with comments on blogs, articles etc. that many people have decided, having watched the Channel 4 documentary, that members of the Society are 'nutters', 'cultists', 'romantics' and that the skeleton now proves the Tudors were right because he was a hunchback.
>
> As soon as I heard the 'H' word, not once, but twice, in that documentary, I felt something like this would happen.
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain wrote:
> >
> > Another stupid question, but are there actual bones in an urn, or remains, as in cremation? If the bones are in an urn, it seems to me that it would be very difficult to extract DNS information. But, i am not an anthropologist or forensic scientist. I am the rambler in the group, and will try and desist.
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2013, at 6:44 AM, "EileenB" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Well..according to this Daily Mail article...I know, I know!...the bones in the Urn will not be getting tested anytime soon....
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274247/Richard-III-unearthed-princes-tower-stay-buried.html#axzz2JwNyMOaa
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > >
> > > You know..I was not too sure about Simon Farnaby at the beginning of the programme but at the end I found I really liked him. I loved when he announced at the end "I am a Ricardian!"..it reminded me of that scene in Sparticus where all the slaves all jump up and say "I am Sparticus"..of course they all ended up crucified so I hope the same fate does not await Simon because over the years Richardians have been metaphorically crucified on a regular basis.."ladies of a certain age in love with a dead king"..Yuk.."nutters" and two days ago "they (Ricardians) believe that Daughter of Time is a non-fiction history book"....hahahah....I find it all kind of amusing...and anyway, he who laughs last laughs longest as they say....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if his parents know he has control of a keyboard?
> > > >
> > > > --- In , liz williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > My thoughts exactly but I thought I'd be polite. Not any more though, I've had enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > From: eileen bates
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 12:10
> > > > > Subject: Re: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh ignore....he is obviously taking the piss....Eileen
> > > > > On 6 Feb 2013, at 12:04, liz williams wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We are quite happy to occasionally discuss things which are off topic. If they last for more than 1 or 2 e mails then we start a new thread which people are free to ignore if they wish.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: charliechan82w suhbyungdoh@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, 6 February 2013, 10:11
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard III Exhumation
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankyou for that reply. I was not at the press conference and did not hear that in the documentary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way why are people discussing whether or not they like Helen Mirren in this group ? Its totally irellevant.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com , pidgesherry@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was made quite clear in the press conference that a Home Office license for exhumation had been obtained (which accounted for the delay in exhuming the bones after their discovery on day one). It was also made very clear that the license specified reburial in Leicester Cathedral, as he nearest consecrated place.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from my iPad
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>