Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann

Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
righteous.
Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
in on the dig.
L.M. L.,
Janet Trimbath
(Society member since 1989)

The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.

It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).

Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?

I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.

It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.

Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.

Col

--- In , Janet Trimbath <treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> righteous.
> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> in on the dig.
> L.M. L.,
> Janet Trimbath
> (Society member since 1989)
>
>
>
>

I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the place in which they died? If so, might that not be part of the consideration? It might be criticized as one set of rules for ordinary soldiers and another for the king, which would not have been in keeping with Richard III's well-known concern that all be treated equally under the law.

The selection of Leicester Cathedral is also in keeping with current practice in archeology, in which any remains disinterred from consecrated ground should be reinterred in the nearest consecrated ground. Obviously, Richard III's five-century resting place is no longer in consecrated ground, nor would anyone propose digging up the parking lot to put up, you know, a tomb with a park or something similar.

The authorities at York Minster have also issued a statement saying they have no intent to challenge the intended reinterment at Leicester. Whether that's the best decision or not--something that will be debated world without end--it sounds as though the archeology team did their homework before starting the dig and are on solid legal grounds.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
>
> It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
> It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
>
> Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
>
> I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
>
> It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
>
> Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
>
> Col
>
> --- In , Janet Trimbath <treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> > righteous.
> > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> > in on the dig.
> > L.M. L.,
> > Janet Trimbath
> > (Society member since 1989)
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location


> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
> to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
> contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
> place in which they died?

No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.

Ah, I guess I must be thinking about Remembrance Day, with the poppies. We don't do that exactly the same way here, although it is known as Veterans' Day and is devoted to remembering the sacrifices of the armed forces.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> > I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
> > to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
> > contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
> > place in which they died?
>
> No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
> not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
> their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.
>

From: mcjohn_wt_net
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location



> Ah, I guess I must be thinking about Remembrance Day, with the poppies. We
> don't do that exactly the same way here, although it is known as Veterans'
> Day and is devoted to remembering the sacrifices of the armed forces.

Soldiers who fell during the world wars were buried near where they fell,
because there were too many of them and too much was going on to bring them
home, and when new bodies of soldiers of the time are found they too are
buried abroad so they can be with their mates. But soldiers who die in the
smaller, less lethal conflicts we have nowadays get brought home, even if
they died many thousands of miles away.

If there was a surviving, identifiable group burial for Yorkist soldiers who
died at Bosworth it would make sense, in a WWI cemetary sort of way, for
Richard to be buried with his men. But I don't think there is one.

It's a thing, as I say, that I have mixed feelings about. Ritually, it
makes sense for him to be buried at the dead centre of his kindgom,
especially if they're burying him crowned. But at the same time he was the
north's king much more than he was the south's, and he himself would almost
certainly have wanted to go home and be buried in the north.

There's a terribly sad traditional song called The North-Country Maid which
is about a northerner who goes to London and isn't happy there, and

How I wish once again in the North I could be:
Oh the oak and the ash and the bonny ivy tree
They are flourishing yet in my ain country.

and I think that Richard would agree with that. So, yes, it makes a lot of
sense to bury him in Liecester, but it means condemning his body to
continued exile.

Incidentally, if anybody's interested and can get BBC programmes to play for
them, there was an episode of Countryfile on this evening which had somebody
speaking in the dialect of the north of Northumberland, and it sounded to me
quite a lot like the reconstruction of Richard's accent which was done
recently. It's about three quarters of the way through the programme. I
can make a sound file of it for anybody who can't get the Beeb download.

Actually I believe there are near contemporary cases that suggest that in "famous names" cases, the bodies were brought back to a place meaningful to them. I can't find the evidence right now but I read a piece on this only a few days ago. Of course British soldiers today are repatriated home. And Richard was placed in charge of the re-interment of his father/brother from thir hasty burial at Pontefract along a processional route and to Fotheringhay.

I agree that Leicester Cathedral is a stone's throw from the Greyfriars and common archaeological practice is to re-inter in the nearest site. However, that is almost always if not always in cases where the remains are "unknown". When a named individual is found, there are different protocols and personally I don't think these have been followed. Richard's resting place in Greyfriars is still consecrated ground, but as an ancient Christian site it is free from the legal effects of consecration.

York Minster is in a difficult position. The Dean and Chapter's statement "commends" Richard to Leicester. However Vivienne Faull was only made Dean of York last December. Prior to that, she was Dean of Leicester for 10 years, obviously including the period during which the bones were found and also the period of pre-dig discussion which decided the location. The Dean and Chapter of York are now stating in reply to concerned emails that they are "collating opinions" and "consulting with York City Council and the Society".

--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the place in which they died? If so, might that not be part of the consideration? It might be criticized as one set of rules for ordinary soldiers and another for the king, which would not have been in keeping with Richard III's well-known concern that all be treated equally under the law.
>
> The selection of Leicester Cathedral is also in keeping with current practice in archeology, in which any remains disinterred from consecrated ground should be reinterred in the nearest consecrated ground. Obviously, Richard III's five-century resting place is no longer in consecrated ground, nor would anyone propose digging up the parking lot to put up, you know, a tomb with a park or something similar.
>
> The authorities at York Minster have also issued a statement saying they have no intent to challenge the intended reinterment at Leicester. Whether that's the best decision or not--something that will be debated world without end--it sounds as though the archeology team did their homework before starting the dig and are on solid legal grounds.
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
> >
> > It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
> > It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
> >
> > Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
> >
> > I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
> >
> > It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
> >
> > Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
> >
> > Col
> >
> > --- In , Janet Trimbath <treenbagh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> > > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> > > righteous.
> > > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> > > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> > > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> > > in on the dig.
> > > L.M. L.,
> > > Janet Trimbath
> > > (Society member since 1989)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Sorry to disagree but the ceremonial repatriation of soldiers' bodies is a very recent phenomenon. Until very recently, they were buried where, or close to where, they died, hence the vast number of wonderfully maintained cemeteries in many parts of the world. I suspect the change has more to do with air transport enabling quick repatriation, and the relatively small number of bodies involved, than anything else.

Sent from my iPad

I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."

--- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath <treenbagh@...> wrote:

From: Janet Trimbath <treenbagh@...>
Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
To:
Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49
















 









Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now

when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all

righteous.

Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I

have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.

This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get

in on the dig.

L.M. L.,

Janet Trimbath

(Society member since 1989)

The Romanovs are often mentioned on this forum, and it's an apt comparison. 
When the bodies of the murdered Nicholas II and family were finally unearthed in Ekaterinburg (in the Urals) there was a furious debate over where to reinter them, with some arguing that since their flesh had become part of the Ekaterinburg earth their skeletons should not be moved from the city.
Conversely, other people were horrified at the idea of leaving an Emperor of Russia in a grim industrial town which had been the site of his murder and imprisonment (and largely hostile to him in 1918).
Ultimately, the bodies went back to St Petersburg, the former capital and burial place of the previous Tsars, while Ekaterinburg has built its own Cathedral to them, complete with visitors centre, annual pilgrims and so forth.
There *are* some differences between Richard's and Nicholas's situations, inasmuch as people assume Richard received some sort of funeral in Leicester at the time of his first burial - which was certainly not the case with Nicholas's family. But the parallel arguments about whether you leave someone where they had lain or move them to a spot which would be more attractive to them personally is an interesting one.

--- On Mon, 4/3/13, colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
To:
Date: Monday, 4 March, 2013, 7:39
















 









Actually I believe there are near contemporary cases that suggest that in "famous names" cases, the bodies were brought back to a place meaningful to them. I can't find the evidence right now but I read a piece on this only a few days ago. Of course British soldiers today are repatriated home. And Richard was placed in charge of the re-interment of his father/brother from thir hasty burial at Pontefract along a processional route and to Fotheringhay.



I agree that Leicester Cathedral is a stone's throw from the Greyfriars and common archaeological practice is to re-inter in the nearest site. However, that is almost always if not always in cases where the remains are "unknown". When a named individual is found, there are different protocols and personally I don't think these have been followed. Richard's resting place in Greyfriars is still consecrated ground, but as an ancient Christian site it is free from the legal effects of consecration.



York Minster is in a difficult position. The Dean and Chapter's statement "commends" Richard to Leicester. However Vivienne Faull was only made Dean of York last December. Prior to that, she was Dean of Leicester for 10 years, obviously including the period during which the bones were found and also the period of pre-dig discussion which decided the location. The Dean and Chapter of York are now stating in reply to concerned emails that they are "collating opinions" and "consulting with York City Council and the Society".



--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:

>

> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the place in which they died? If so, might that not be part of the consideration? It might be criticized as one set of rules for ordinary soldiers and another for the king, which would not have been in keeping with Richard III's well-known concern that all be treated equally under the law.

>

> The selection of Leicester Cathedral is also in keeping with current practice in archeology, in which any remains disinterred from consecrated ground should be reinterred in the nearest consecrated ground. Obviously, Richard III's five-century resting place is no longer in consecrated ground, nor would anyone propose digging up the parking lot to put up, you know, a tomb with a park or something similar.

>

> The authorities at York Minster have also issued a statement saying they have no intent to challenge the intended reinterment at Leicester. Whether that's the best decision or not--something that will be debated world without end--it sounds as though the archeology team did their homework before starting the dig and are on solid legal grounds.

>

> --- In , colyngbourne wrote:

> >

> > The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.

> >

> > It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".

> > It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).

> >

> > Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?

> >

> > I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.

> >

> > It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.

> >

> > Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.

> >

> > Col

> >

> > --- In , Janet Trimbath wrote:

> > >

> > > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now

> > > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all

> > > righteous.

> > > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I

> > > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.

> > > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get

> > > in on the dig.

> > > L.M. L.,

> > > Janet Trimbath

> > > (Society member since 1989)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...'  With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will.  Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother.  However, once he became King, his life moved South.  Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother.  

In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.

I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.

It is not a pleasant image.


________________________________
From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59
Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann


 
I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."

--- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...> wrote:

From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...>
Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
To:
Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49

 

Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now

when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all

righteous.

Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I

have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.

This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get

in on the dig.

L.M. L.,

Janet Trimbath

(Society member since 1989)

A bit like in the States, except we don't have nutters from Westboro Baptist Church picketing them when they arrive... lol

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mcjohn_wt_net
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> > I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
> > to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
> > contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
> > place in which they died?
>
> No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
> not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
> their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.
>

I agree with you - I don't think a lot of wrangling and sniping makes a pleasant image in which should be an open debate based on historical arguments and so on. For me, Richard's burial place should be a matter of intellectual discussion and not a question of casting aspersions on peoples' - or cities' - motivation. Obviously, a lot of people feel that that discussion has not actually taken place.    
I would like to post a bit more about Richard and (the city of) York in general, but am two minds whether to do it here in this thread or change the heading.....

--- On Mon, 4/3/13, Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
Subject: Richard's Reburial
To: "" <>
Date: Monday, 4 March, 2013, 9:12
















 









There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...'  With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will.  Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother.  However, once he became King, his life moved South.  Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother.  



In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.



I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.



It is not a pleasant image.



________________________________

From: Janet Ashton jaangelfire@...>

To:

Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59

Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann





 

I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.

Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?

Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."



--- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...> wrote:



From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...>

Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann

To:

Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49



 



Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now



when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all



righteous.



Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I



have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.



This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get



in on the dig.



L.M. L.,



Janet Trimbath



(Society member since 1989)

I agree that it is less than ideal that there is disagreement over the location of reinterment. Nor does it, to my mind, help the image of the Society that it is agreeing on Leicester as the place of reinterment. A few years back, if anyone had said that the remains of RIII would come to light, could any of the Society members even imagine that they would not be reinterred somewhere away from Leicester and in a location appropriate to Richard? I find it personally astonishing and horrific that reinterrment in the place of his terrible death and bodily despolation, is being considered by the Society that bears his name, as the place most suitable. The Society may not know Richard's own wishes on this, but they know it would not have been Leicester.

The Eng Her doc offers a useful recommendation in its pages, that there should be "regard to the intentions and wishes of the deceased, as far as they can be discovered or inferred". Anyone with an ounce of interest in Richard's life, whether professional (Hicks, Pollard) or amateur, knows that Richard had a very longstanding and close affiliation and connection to the north, and to York especially, and to York Minster (the location of his son's investiture as PoW), and that along with the Collegiate statue he planned for it, that York is a very likely location Richard may have wished. Other locations, more likely after his assumption of the throne, would be Westminster or Windsor. It is certain that Richard would not have wished Leicester.

I agree that it is unfortunate that a lot of media attention is focused on the tourism issue, which is unhelpful at the very least. However, it was Leicester's Chamber of Commerce man who rather proudly states in the Big Issue article of last week, that "we are going to milk this for all it's worth", and the vast and sudden array of "touristic opportunities" that have suddenly appeared in the wake of the remains being discovered, does seem to bear this out.


--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...'  With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will.  Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother.  However, once he became King, his life moved South.  Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother.  
>
> In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
>
> I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
>
> It is not a pleasant image.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59
> Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
> Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
> Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."
>
> --- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...>
> Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> To:
> Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49
>
>  
>
> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
>
> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
>
> righteous.
>
> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
>
> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
>
> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
>
> in on the dig.
>
> L.M. L.,
>
> Janet Trimbath
>
> (Society member since 1989)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The decision of where Richard should be reburied does not lie with the Society.  As I recall, Dr Stone wrote that the Society's stance was neutral.  The decision is granted to the owner of the licence - the University of Leicester.


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:

 
I agree that it is less than ideal that there is disagreement over the location of reinterment. Nor does it, to my mind, help the image of the Society that it is agreeing on Leicester as the place of reinterment. A few years back, if anyone had said that the remains of RIII would come to light, could any of the Society members even imagine that they would not be reinterred somewhere away from Leicester and in a location appropriate to Richard? I find it personally astonishing and horrific that reinterrment in the place of his terrible death and bodily despolation, is being considered by the Society that bears his name, as the place most suitable. The Society may not know Richard's own wishes on this, but they know it would not have been Leicester.

The Eng Her doc offers a useful recommendation in its pages, that there should be "regard to the intentions and wishes of the deceased, as far as they can be discovered or inferred". Anyone with an ounce of interest in Richard's life, whether professional (Hicks, Pollard) or amateur, knows that Richard had a very longstanding and close affiliation and connection to the north, and to York especially, and to York Minster (the location of his son's investiture as PoW), and that along with the Collegiate statue he planned for it, that York is a very likely location Richard may have wished. Other locations, more likely after his assumption of the throne, would be Westminster or Windsor. It is certain that Richard would not have wished Leicester.

I agree that it is unfortunate that a lot of media attention is focused on the tourism issue, which is unhelpful at the very least. However, it was Leicester's Chamber of Commerce man who rather proudly states in the Big Issue article of last week, that "we are going to milk this for all it's worth", and the vast and sudden array of "touristic opportunities" that have suddenly appeared in the wake of the remains being discovered, does seem to bear this out.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...'  With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will.  Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother.  However, once he became King, his life moved South.  Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother.  
>
> In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
>
> I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
>
> It is not a pleasant image.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Janet Ashton
> To:
> Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59
> Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
>
>
>  
> I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
> Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
> Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."
>
> --- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...> wrote:
>
> From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@...>
> Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> To:
> Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49
>
>  
>
> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
>
> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
>
> righteous.
>
> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
>
> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
>
> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
>
> in on the dig.
>
> L.M. L.,
>
> Janet Trimbath
>
> (Society member since 1989)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

They're not buried where they fall nowadays but maybe that's a question of numbers.  The number of dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst probably significant to us, just pales compared to WW1 And WW2 where people "were" buried where they fell.  In conflicts prior to that people were also buried in the country they fought in - my grandmother's brother, for example, is buried in India (although he died of cholera, not in war).  In the past of course they didn't have to ability to bring bodies back quickly by air and in the 20th century conflicts, the numbers were just too big (and it's a bit difficult to organise when you are actually still fighting, as was often the case.)
 
 
However I don't really think this issue has been taken into consideration when planning  Richard's burial. 

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 0:17
Subject: Re: Re: Retinterment Location

 
From: mcjohn_wt_net
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location

> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
> to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
> contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
> place in which they died?

No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.

True, but I don't believe the Society should be neutral on behalf of Richard. Even if its membership wishes a variety of locations, surely it should be able to speak up to say that Leicester (as per the Romanov example) is inappropriate, and here are a handful of places which our members might generally consider to be appropriate. At its founding, the Society seemed to stand for something, but perhaps now it is a research zone only. The Society purports to be able to speak on "what's appropriate and fitting for Richard" re his tomb eg. we know he was devoted to St Cuthbert, used a boar badge etc, and it should be dignified and appropriate to him. How can they speak as to that but be neutral on reburying him in the place of his slaughter and pitiful burial? Would we reinter a murder victim in the town where their remains were finally discovered? Would a support group for that murder victim not actively state "we wish this person to be buried 'elsewhere', somewhere connected with them, and here are a few of the best discernible ideas from the people who know all about the deceased" ?

The University has the licence, but a decision was made before it applied for the licence, as to the "intention to re-inter in Leicester". Lots of people wish to know how this decision, pre-dig, pre-discovery, was arrived at and by whom. Considering the remains of a king of England, the decision should be publicly accountable.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> The decision of where Richard should be reburied does not lie with the Society.  As I recall, Dr Stone wrote that the Society's stance was neutral.  The decision is granted to the owner of the licence - the University of Leicester.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  
> I agree that it is less than ideal that there is disagreement over the location of reinterment. Nor does it, to my mind, help the image of the Society that it is agreeing on Leicester as the place of reinterment. A few years back, if anyone had said that the remains of RIII would come to light, could any of the Society members even imagine that they would not be reinterred somewhere away from Leicester and in a location appropriate to Richard? I find it personally astonishing and horrific that reinterrment in the place of his terrible death and bodily despolation, is being considered by the Society that bears his name, as the place most suitable. The Society may not know Richard's own wishes on this, but they know it would not have been Leicester.
>
> The Eng Her doc offers a useful recommendation in its pages, that there should be "regard to the intentions and wishes of the deceased, as far as they can be discovered or inferred". Anyone with an ounce of interest in Richard's life, whether professional (Hicks, Pollard) or amateur, knows that Richard had a very longstanding and close affiliation and connection to the north, and to York especially, and to York Minster (the location of his son's investiture as PoW), and that along with the Collegiate statue he planned for it, that York is a very likely location Richard may have wished. Other locations, more likely after his assumption of the throne, would be Westminster or Windsor. It is certain that Richard would not have wished Leicester.
>
> I agree that it is unfortunate that a lot of media attention is focused on the tourism issue, which is unhelpful at the very least. However, it was Leicester's Chamber of Commerce man who rather proudly states in the Big Issue article of last week, that "we are going to milk this for all it's worth", and the vast and sudden array of "touristic opportunities" that have suddenly appeared in the wake of the remains being discovered, does seem to bear this out.
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...'  With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will.  Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother.  However, once he became King, his life moved South.  Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother.  
> >
> > In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
> >
> > I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
> >
> > It is not a pleasant image.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Janet Ashton
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59
> > Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> >
> >
> >  
> > I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
> > Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
> > Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."
> >
> > --- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@>
> > Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> > To:
> > Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49
> >
> >  
> >
> > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> >
> > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> >
> > righteous.
> >
> > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> >
> > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> >
> > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> >
> > in on the dig.
> >
> > L.M. L.,
> >
> > Janet Trimbath
> >
> > (Society member since 1989)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hear, Hear. [Very Forgiving of Colyngbourne.  ]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013, 22:33
>Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
>
>
> 
>The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
>
>It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
>It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
>
>Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
>
>I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
>
>It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
>
>Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
>
>Col
>
>--- In , Janet Trimbath wrote:
>>
>> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
>> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
>> righteous.
>> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
>> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
>> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
>> in on the dig.
>> L.M. L.,
>> Janet Trimbath
>> (Society member since 1989)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Soldiers Remains are CURRENTLY Repatriated.

However in the Case of BOTH 'World Wars' [& prior to that.] they were buried near to where they fell.

Exceptions were made for heroes such as Nelson, who seems to have dreaded burial at sea.

The nearest major similar 'Royal Deaths' to Richard's were probably his Brother Edward IV @ Windsor & in the other direction Prince Arthur Died @ Ludlow, Buried @ Worcester. [The Latter in what is perhaps one of the best surviving 'Chantry Chapels. [Survived almost intact perhaps for his being Brother of Henry VIII?]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 2:35
>Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> 
>Ah, I guess I must be thinking about Remembrance Day, with the poppies. We don't do that exactly the same way here, although it is known as Veterans' Day and is devoted to remembering the sacrifices of the armed forces.
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>>
>> From: mcjohn_wt_net
>> To:
>> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>>
>>
>> > I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
>> > to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
>> > contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
>> > place in which they died?
>>
>> No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
>> not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
>> their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello All, please, please if you feel the Society is not doing what it should get in touch with Dr Phil Stone the Society chairman and tell him what you think please
The contact email is on the Societies web site.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Hear, Hear. [Very Forgiving of Colyngbourne.  ]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> >To:
> >Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013, 22:33
> >Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> >
> >
> > 
> >The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
> >
> >It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
> >It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
> >
> >Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
> >
> >I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
> >
> >It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
> >
> >Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
> >
> >Col
> >
> >--- In , Janet Trimbath wrote:
> >>
> >> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> >> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> >> righteous.
> >> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> >> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> >> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> >> in on the dig.
> >> L.M. L.,
> >> Janet Trimbath
> >> (Society member since 1989)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

That and network news. It is easier to identify and transport remains now, and thank God it is not thousands per battle.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:52 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



They're not buried where they fall nowadays but maybe that's a question of numbers. The number of dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst probably significant to us, just pales compared to WW1 And WW2 where people "were" buried where they fell. In conflicts prior to that people were also buried in the country they fought in - my grandmother's brother, for example, is buried in India (although he died of cholera, not in war). In the past of course they didn't have to ability to bring bodies back quickly by air and in the 20th century conflicts, the numbers were just too big (and it's a bit difficult to organise when you are actually still fighting, as was often the case.)


However I don't really think this issue has been taken into consideration when planning Richard's burial.

From: Claire M Jordan whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 0:17
Subject: Re: Re: Retinterment Location


From: mcjohn_wt_net
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location

> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision
> to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the
> contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the
> place in which they died?

No, quite the reverse - soldiers' bodies are ceremonially repatriated. I'm
not sure what the format is for where they end up - I suppose it's up to
their family - but they certainly aren't buried where they fall.

I agree. We may each have an opinion, but we are united in our respect for Richard III. As I understand it, we are trying to discuss ideas, learn more than we knew, and for many of you - teach those of us who know very little.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:52 AM, "colyngbourne" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:



True, but I don't believe the Society should be neutral on behalf of Richard. Even if its membership wishes a variety of locations, surely it should be able to speak up to say that Leicester (as per the Romanov example) is inappropriate, and here are a handful of places which our members might generally consider to be appropriate. At its founding, the Society seemed to stand for something, but perhaps now it is a research zone only. The Society purports to be able to speak on "what's appropriate and fitting for Richard" re his tomb eg. we know he was devoted to St Cuthbert, used a boar badge etc, and it should be dignified and appropriate to him. How can they speak as to that but be neutral on reburying him in the place of his slaughter and pitiful burial? Would we reinter a murder victim in the town where their remains were finally discovered? Would a support group for that murder victim not actively state "we wish this person to be buried 'elsewhere', somewhere connected with them, and here are a few of the best discernible ideas from the people who know all about the deceased" ?

The University has the licence, but a decision was made before it applied for the licence, as to the "intention to re-inter in Leicester". Lots of people wish to know how this decision, pre-dig, pre-discovery, was arrived at and by whom. Considering the remains of a king of England, the decision should be publicly accountable.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
>
>
>
> The decision of where Richard should be reburied does not lie with the Society. ý As I recall, Dr Stone wrote that the Society's stance was neutral. ý The decision is granted to the owner of the licence - the University of Leicester.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne [email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>ý wrote:
>
> ý
> I agree that it is less than ideal that there is disagreement over the location of reinterment. Nor does it, to my mind, help the image of the Society that it is agreeing on Leicester as the place of reinterment. A few years back, if anyone had said that the remains of RIII would come to light, could any of the Society members even imagine that they would not be reinterred somewhere away from Leicester and in a location appropriate to Richard? I find it personally astonishing and horrific that reinterrment in the place of his terrible death and bodily despolation, is being considered by the Society that bears his name, as the place most suitable. The Society may not know Richard's own wishes on this, but they know it would not have been Leicester.
>
> The Eng Her doc offers a useful recommendation in its pages, that there should be "regard to the intentions and wishes of the deceased, as far as they can be discovered or inferred". Anyone with an ounce of interest in Richard's life, whether professional (Hicks, Pollard) or amateur, knows that Richard had a very longstanding and close affiliation and connection to the north, and to York especially, and to York Minster (the location of his son's investiture as PoW), and that along with the Collegiate statue he planned for it, that York is a very likely location Richard may have wished. Other locations, more likely after his assumption of the throne, would be Westminster or Windsor. It is certain that Richard would not have wished Leicester.
>
> I agree that it is unfortunate that a lot of media attention is focused on the tourism issue, which is unhelpful at the very least. However, it was Leicester's Chamber of Commerce man who rather proudly states in the Big Issue article of last week, that "we are going to milk this for all it's worth", and the vast and sudden array of "touristic opportunities" that have suddenly appeared in the wake of the remains being discovered, does seem to bear this out.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Furmidge wrote:
> >
> > There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have preferred...' ýýý With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave any record or will. ýýý Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and was a successful viceroy for his brother. ýýý However, once he became King, his life moved South. ýýý Had he reigned for longer, then died, he would probably have been buried in Westminster Abbey, near to his wife, or St George's Windsor near his brother. ýýý
> >
> > In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times. ýýý Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
> >
> > I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
> >
> > It is not a pleasant image.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Janet Ashton
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:59
> > Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> >
> >
> > ýýý
> > I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
> > Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
> > Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."
> >
> > --- On Sun, 3/3/13, Janet Trimbath treenbagh@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Janet Trimbath treenbagh@>
> > Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sunday, 3 March, 2013, 19:49
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> >
> > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> >
> > righteous.
> >
> > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> >
> > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> >
> > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> >
> > in on the dig.
> >
> > L.M. L.,
> >
> > Janet Trimbath
> >
> > (Society member since 1989)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: pidgesherry@...
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 8:27 AM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location


> Sorry to disagree but the ceremonial repatriation of soldiers' bodies is a
> very recent phenomenon. Until very recently, they were buried where, or
> close to where, they died,

Not in the case of famous leaders, though - they got pickled in brine or
brandy and brought home, or in some cases just their hearts were preserved
and brought home. In some cases their preserved hearts were treated as
still alive and taken on crusades etc..

I understand that the preserved body of Jeremy Bentham still attends
important meetings of University College London, where he is listed as
present but not voting....

From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 9:12 AM
Subject: Richard's Reburial


> There has been a lot of discussion about 'what Richard would have
> preferred...' With respect, we have no way of knowing - he didn't leave
> any record or will. Yes, he lived in the North for around 12 years and
> was a successful viceroy for his brother. However, once he became King,
> his life moved South.

Yet he still managed to visit the north at least twice during his brief
reign, and put people's backs up by filling his government with northerners,
and also, his life in the south turned out pretty unhappily, so although we
can't be 100% certain it's very likely that his preference would have been
for the north where he had been happy. Arguing about what he would have
wanted doesn't look like tourist dollars to many people, I think - it just
shows that people are seeing his bones as the remains of a living person and
not just an interesting archaeological relic. The team at Leicester still
haven't quite got their heads round it because it's so unusual to find a
named person, especially one whose history is known (as opposed to "This is
Abbot Whosit but that's all we know about him").

What was done with the remains of Philip of Macedon?

Hello All again Dr Stone Chairman's email
ptstone@...

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hello All, please, please if you feel the Society is not doing what it should get in touch with Dr Phil Stone the Society chairman and tell him what you think please
> The contact email is on the Societies web site.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >
> > Hear, Hear. [Very Forgiving of Colyngbourne.  ]
> >  
> > Kind Regards,
> >  
> > Arthur.
> >
> >
> >
> > >________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > >To:
> > >Sent: Sunday, 3 March 2013, 22:33
> > >Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
> > >
> > >It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
> > >It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
> > >
> > >Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
> > >
> > >I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
> > >
> > >It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
> > >
> > >Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
> > >
> > >Col
> > >
> > >--- In , Janet Trimbath wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
> > >> when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
> > >> righteous.
> > >> Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
> > >> have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
> > >> This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
> > >> in on the dig.
> > >> L.M. L.,
> > >> Janet Trimbath
> > >> (Society member since 1989)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

  I would hate to be associated with ANY nasty remarks against ANY city or individual.

  However in View of the possible conflict developing, perhaps the BEST SOLUTION would be a 'Democratic One', either a Minister decides [Democratically elected] or the 'Prime Minister decides based on the call on him by the people' Current Petition.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 9:11
>Subject: Re: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> 
>The Romanovs are often mentioned on this forum, and it's an apt comparison. 
>When the bodies of the murdered Nicholas II and family were finally unearthed in Ekaterinburg (in the Urals) there was a furious debate over where to reinter them, with some arguing that since their flesh had become part of the Ekaterinburg earth their skeletons should not be moved from the city.
>Conversely, other people were horrified at the idea of leaving an Emperor of Russia in a grim industrial town which had been the site of his murder and imprisonment (and largely hostile to him in 1918).
>Ultimately, the bodies went back to St Petersburg, the former capital and burial place of the previous Tsars, while Ekaterinburg has built its own Cathedral to them, complete with visitors centre, annual pilgrims and so forth.
>There *are* some differences between Richard's and Nicholas's situations, inasmuch as people assume Richard received some sort of funeral in Leicester at the time of his first burial - which was certainly not the case with Nicholas's family. But the parallel arguments about whether you leave someone where they had lain or move them to a spot which would be more attractive to them personally is an interesting one.
>
>--- On Mon, 4/3/13, colyngbourne [email protected]> wrote:
>
>From: colyngbourne [email protected]>
>Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>To:
>Date: Monday, 4 March, 2013, 7:39
>
> 
>
>Actually I believe there are near contemporary cases that suggest that in "famous names" cases, the bodies were brought back to a place meaningful to them. I can't find the evidence right now but I read a piece on this only a few days ago. Of course British soldiers today are repatriated home. And Richard was placed in charge of the re-interment of his father/brother from thir hasty burial at Pontefract along a processional route and to Fotheringhay.
>
>I agree that Leicester Cathedral is a stone's throw from the Greyfriars and common archaeological practice is to re-inter in the nearest site. However, that is almost always if not always in cases where the remains are "unknown". When a named individual is found, there are different protocols and personally I don't think these have been followed. Richard's resting place in Greyfriars is still consecrated ground, but as an ancient Christian site it is free from the legal effects of consecration.
>
>York Minster is in a difficult position. The Dean and Chapter's statement "commends" Richard to Leicester. However Vivienne Faull was only made Dean of York last December. Prior to that, she was Dean of Leicester for 10 years, obviously including the period during which the bones were found and also the period of pre-dig discussion which decided the location. The Dean and Chapter of York are now stating in reply to concerned emails that they are "collating opinions" and "consulting with York City Council and the Society".
>
>--- In , "mcjohn_wt_net" wrote:
>
>>
>
>> I don't know anything bout the discussions surrounding the legal decision to reinter the king's remains at Leicester, but am I correct that the contemporary British practice is to inter fallen soldiers near to the place in which they died? If so, might that not be part of the consideration? It might be criticized as one set of rules for ordinary soldiers and another for the king, which would not have been in keeping with Richard III's well-known concern that all be treated equally under the law.
>
>>
>
>> The selection of Leicester Cathedral is also in keeping with current practice in archeology, in which any remains disinterred from consecrated ground should be reinterred in the nearest consecrated ground. Obviously, Richard III's five-century resting place is no longer in consecrated ground, nor would anyone propose digging up the parking lot to put up, you know, a tomb with a park or something similar.
>
>>
>
>> The authorities at York Minster have also issued a statement saying they have no intent to challenge the intended reinterment at Leicester. Whether that's the best decision or not--something that will be debated world without end--it sounds as though the archeology team did their homework before starting the dig and are on solid legal grounds.
>
>>
>
>> --- In , colyngbourne wrote:
>
>> >
>
>> > The dig was arranged in Leicester by PL in association with the University. It would be surprising if she had involved York City Council. but YCC, like many groups and individuals, recognise Richard's well known ties with their city.
>
>> >
>
>> > It is Leicester's Chief Executive of the Chamber of Commerce who has said "we are going to milk this one for all it's worth".
>
>> > It's not a case of finders-keepers. This is a nation's monarch, not Leicester's (and indeed not York's either).
>
>> >
>
>> > Both Leicester and York have cathedral/minster churches - it's not about whether it's fine or not - but about where it is appropriate for RIII's remains to lie - somewhere in keeping with his life. If the Society can propose a tomb that is appropriate to Richard, why can't they support a location that is even more appropriate to Richard?
>
>> >
>
>> > I am not a member of the Foundation - nor are any of the people I have discussed this with either online or offline in the last three weeks, the majority of whom wish for York. 24,000+ people voting on the e-petition are not all from York, or from Yorkshire, or even just the north. I have been a loyal member of the Society for 30+ years but I think at this point there has been a lack of consultation with the membership, many of whom are left reeling that the Society is seemingly supportive of re-interring King Richard in the place where his enemy killed him, and allowed his corpse to be mutilated by paid soldiers, before dumping him in a pitiful grave - supportive of Leicester and not supportive of other nationally significant locations appropriate to and connected with the man himself.
>
>> >
>
>> > It is not about the virtues of one place over another - but about what is right for the remains of this king, with his connections and well-known affection for the north and York in particular.
>
>> >
>
>> > Richard had no connection with Leicester other than his untimely brutal death, bodily despolation and pitiful burial. His remains may have lain there for 527 years but now is the moment to address where is the right place for the remains; where might he have wished for himself. And it is not Leicester.
>
>> >
>
>> > Col
>
>> >
>
>> > --- In , Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
>> > >
>
>> > > Where was the City of York when the dig was in progress? Nary a peep! Now
>
>> > > when the prospect of tourism $ comes up...there thyare, getting all
>
>> > > righteous.
>
>> > > Let Leicester keep the King. They have hosted him for over 500 years. I
>
>> > > have been to Leicester several times and it is a fine cathedral.
>
>> > > This is all about the R III Foundation sour grapes because they didn't get
>
>> > > in on the dig.
>
>> > > L.M. L.,
>
>> > > Janet Trimbath
>
>> > > (Society member since 1989)
>
>> > >
>
>> > >
>
>> > >
>
>> > >
>
>> >
>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think like everyone down the ages, it depended who you were. Warwick and Mantague were interred at Bisham after Barnet, Catesby (even though beheaded) at Ashby St Ledger. Henry V at Westminster after dying at Vincennes. You can't really argue that what applied to common soldiers applied to the upper eschelons. They normaly went to their family home - even ROY to Fotheringhay in the end.


________________________________
From: "pidgesherry@..." <pidgesherry@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 8:27
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location

 

Sorry to disagree but the ceremonial repatriation of soldiers' bodies is a very recent phenomenon. Until very recently, they were buried where, or close to where, they died, hence the vast number of wonderfully maintained cemeteries in many parts of the world. I suspect the change has more to do with air transport enabling quick repatriation, and the relatively small number of bodies involved, than anything else.

Sent from my iPad

pidgesherry@... wrote:
>
> Sorry to disagree but the ceremonial repatriation of soldiers' bodies is a very recent phenomenon. Until very recently, they were buried where, or close to where, they died, hence the vast number of wonderfully maintained cemeteries in many parts of the world. I suspect the change has more to do with air transport enabling quick repatriation, and the relatively small number of bodies involved, than anything else.

Carol responds:

Then Richard was ahead of his time in more ways than we thought. A recently discovered document shows that he had skeletons removed
from the mass graves at Towton and reburied within the churchyards at Saxton and the newly constructed chapel at Towton. Here are Richard's own words (modernized by the author quoting them:

" . . . the people of this kingdom in a plentiful multitude were taken away from human affairs; and their bodies were notoriously left on the field, aforesaid, and in other places nearby, thoroughly outside the ecclesiastical burial-place, in three hollows. Where upon we, on account of affection, contriving the burial of the deceased men of this sort, caused the bones of these same men to be exhumed and left for an ecclesiastical burial in these coming months, partly in the parish church of Saxton in our said county of York and in the cemetery of the said place, and partly in the chapel of Towton, aforesaid, and the surroundings of this very place." (Richard III, 1484)

Here's a link to the original article:

http://aschmidt.geodatawiz.com/publications/preprint/Towton03-Preprint.pdf

It's particularly interesting that Richard is concerned for the dead at Towton, a battle fought when he was only a child.

Carol

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> I'm afraid this is exactly what I mean about the nasty comments about York.
> Did anyone ask for their assistance during the dig, or share information about what was happening?
> Richard's body wasn't IN York; it was in Leicester and the people involved were those on the scene - *because* they were on the scene; it was an issue of geography. York is extremely well-visited already and comments about "tourist $" are beside the point in an issue which involves - on the one hand - questions about what Richard himself might have preferred; and - on the other - a sense of local pride in "the only northern King."

Carol responds:

As I said before, what he wanted as duke of Gloucester and what he wanted as king may have been two different things. Most likely, if he had died in his bed like his brother, he would have wanted to be buried in Westminster Abbey alongside his wife, Anne--and would have wanted it that way. Obviously, that's not the best solution now. But if I must take sides in this unseemly dispute over Richard's remains, it seems best to treat him not as a Northern king, York's "possession," but the king of the whole country, buried in a central location accessible to all. Why reinforce his reputation as a Northern king when he had loyal followers from the Midlands as well as the North: Catesby, Tyrrell, and Norfolk (assuming that the Howards lived in Norfolk, which may be incorrect), not to mention Brampton, who wasn't even English?

It's a good thing that England is a small country. Imagine if we were talking thousands of miles as in the United States!

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location


> It's particularly interesting that Richard is concerned for the dead at
> Towton, a battle fought when he was only a child.


Thanks for finding this - it's a gem. Am I right in thinking that he is
indiscrimately caring for the bodies of the soldiers of both sides, and that
"on account of affection" means someting like "having sympathy for their
plight" or "finding their fate very affecting"? That is, that he is
publicly declaring himself to be motivated by a sympathetic emotion, not
just by piety?

As far as where he is to be buried goes, although I signed that petition for
him to be buried in York I fele obliged to argue against myself and add that
it's occurred to me that even though there isn't a formal cemetary for the
dead at Bosworth, burying Richard at Leicester does mean he'd be staying
close to the men who died for and with him, and that might appeal to him
even if Leicester per se didn't.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
>
> I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
>
> It is not a pleasant image.
>


I see this a bit differently... rather than unseemly wrangling, I think it's strangely uplifting that people care so passionately about a long-dead king's thoughts and wishes that they argue what he himself would have wanted. Not just Ricardians, either.

Actually, I do agree in theory, reinforcing a north-south divide by Richard's reinterment would be an unhelpful thing to do. But I don't see the reinterment being about convenience for visitors or a plan to "unify" an entire kingdom of folk who supported him then and now, but the reinterment surely should be solely about his being buried in a place *appropriate to him*. Although Leicester is close to the "heart of the kingdom", the heart (ie the focus) of the bulk Richard's life and heart of his affections was the north. As with any murder victim or person who dies in a place, it's just not on to say it's fine to re-inter them in the same place where they were slaughtered. We wouldn't wish it for our loved ones. We would bring them back to the place they regarded as home, or a place appropriate to their life and not their death.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:


> As I said before, what he wanted as duke of Gloucester and what he wanted as king may have been two different things. Most likely, if he had died in his bed like his brother, he would have wanted to be buried in Westminster Abbey alongside his wife, Anne--and would have wanted it that way. Obviously, that's not the best solution now. But if I must take sides in this unseemly dispute over Richard's remains, it seems best to treat him not as a Northern king, York's "possession," but the king of the whole country, buried in a central location accessible to all. Why reinforce his reputation as a Northern king when he had loyal followers from the Midlands as well as the North: Catesby, Tyrrell, and Norfolk (assuming that the Howards lived in Norfolk, which may be incorrect), not to mention Brampton, who wasn't even English?
>
> It's a good thing that England is a small country. Imagine if we were talking thousands of miles as in the United States!
>
> Carol
>

Yes Carol that was particularly enlightening, and gives us an even better sense of the man as King. And Claire your statement is also a lovely one. I just hope, in the fullness of time that the name and reputation of Richard III can be changed, to reflect his nobility.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location

> It's particularly interesting that Richard is concerned for the dead at
> Towton, a battle fought when he was only a child.

Thanks for finding this - it's a gem. Am I right in thinking that he is
indiscrimately caring for the bodies of the soldiers of both sides, and that
"on account of affection" means someting like "having sympathy for their
plight" or "finding their fate very affecting"? That is, that he is
publicly declaring himself to be motivated by a sympathetic emotion, not
just by piety?

As far as where he is to be buried goes, although I signed that petition for
him to be buried in York I fele obliged to argue against myself and add that
it's occurred to me that even though there isn't a formal cemetary for the
dead at Bosworth, burying Richard at Leicester does mean he'd be staying
close to the men who died for and with him, and that might appeal to him
even if Leicester per se didn't.

With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.

There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.


________________________________
pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
I see this a bit differently... rather than unseemly wrangling, I think it's strangely uplifting that people care so passionately about a long-dead king's thoughts and wishes that they argue what he himself would have wanted. Not just Ricardians, either.


 
 Pamela Furmidge wrote:
 In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times. (snip)

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.
>
> There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.
>
>


Oh, I agree. I just meant it's strangely uplifting that people actually spend time thinking what he *might* have wanted himself... and care so much where they think he 'belongs', one way or another.

Arthur wrote:
>
>   I would hate to be associated with ANY nasty remarks against ANY city or individual.
>
>   However in View of the possible conflict developing, perhaps the BEST SOLUTION would be a 'Democratic One', either a Minister decides [Democratically elected] or the 'Prime Minister decides based on the call on him by the people' Current Petition.

Carol responds:

Which would ignore the feelings of Ricardians in other countries. There's no way to make everyone happy. At least he's not being reburied in Slough!

You really are addicted to that CAPSLOCK key. Has no one ever told you that all capitals violates Internet etiquette and is considered YELLING?

Carol

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial


> I see this a bit differently... rather than unseemly wrangling, I think
> it's strangely uplifting that people care so passionately about a
> long-dead king's thoughts and wishes that they argue what he himself would
> have wanted.

Or about any dead person, yes, exactly. When the London and Edinburgh
Dungeons can sell images of torture and plague as entertainment, and there's
a chain of shops in Edinburgh called Azteca, it too often seems as though
most people see the long-dead as just images on the screen or the page, as
entertainment, not real people: so it's, yes, uplifting, exactly that, to
see so many people realise that long-dead bones represent a real, breathing,
thinking person and that this matters.

[She says, having once spent some time crooning at a reconstruction of a
100-million-years-dead Baryonyx and telling it it was beautiful and I was
sorry it had died....]

When a person dies, is buried, usually their wishes or likely wishes are taken into account. They are buried in a location appropriate to them. This did not happen for Richard.

Yes, there is no documentation to say what he wished but the English Heritage doc on Best Practice does suggest that "So far as they can be inferred" the wishes or intentions of the deceased should be taken into account. *Inferring* is what Michael Hicks and Tony Pollard and Mark Ormrod amongst thousands of others have done, and they have said "not Leicester" and more likely "York".

Does a person's place of burial matter to people? Yes - we would not insist on murder victims whose remains are brought to light, being re-interred close by where they were found. Why on earth should a king's remains do so?

Does it matter the case of a king brutally murdered in a place and his body despoiled and pitifully interred? All the more so.

Do we have *any indication of places the deceased might have been interred, in the event of natural death* - yes, Westminster, Windsor possibly, and again, possibly York. We know his strongest connection was to York.

Do we have any indication the deceased wished to be buried in St Martin's Church, in the town of Leicester? No. The deceased had no connection there other than his awful death.


--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.
> >
> > There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.
> >
> >
>
>
> Oh, I agree. I just meant it's strangely uplifting that people actually spend time thinking what he *might* have wanted himself... and care so much where they think he 'belongs', one way or another.
>

Hilary Jones wrote:
>
> I think like everyone down the ages, it depended who you were. Warwick and Mantague were interred at Bisham after Barnet, Catesby (even though beheaded) at Ashby St Ledger. Henry V at Westminster after dying at Vincennes. [snip]
Carol responds:

Does anyone know where John Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, was buried after Bosworth?

Carol

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial


> Does it matter the case of a king brutally murdered in a place and his
> body despoiled and pitifully interred? All the more so.

I don't think you can actually say that somebody who was killed in battle
whilst (by all accounts) fighting like a tiger and doing his best to kill or
maim as many of his opponents as possible was *murdered*. He died as all
soldiers who get unlucky died, and it's always tragic, but it isn't murder.

Being hacked about after death is another matter - that's definitely against
the rules, and contrasts badly with Richard's own care for the bodies of the
fallen, although it doesn't necessarily mean that Henry personally wanted
him to be hacked about - I suspect Henry had #~*-all control over his own
forces, and was just happy if they didn't decide to turn on him.

I agree that we don't know what he would have wanted in these totally unprecedented circumstances and I also agree that it is quite heartening to see that so many people care, but it does seem that people are getting very uptight about it all, which is a shame.

My mother, a member of the Richard III Society for over 40 years, is currently getting her knickers in a twist over this very issue ( to the extent, I'm sorry to say, of not making a donation towards the tomb if the society won't support the campaign for York ). She appears quite illogically proprietorial.

My feeling, FWIW, is to rebury the poor man with the utmost respect, in a tomb that reflects his status and importance, in a consecrated place - wherever that may be - and then leave him to rest in peace.

And could I just add, he was a Northamptonshire boy, born and bred. Is it so unthinkable that his final resting place should be in the Midlands?




--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.
> >
> > There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.
> >
> >
>
>
> Oh, I agree. I just meant it's strangely uplifting that people actually spend time thinking what he *might* have wanted himself... and care so much where they think he 'belongs', one way or another.
>

True - the word "murdered" was wrongly used. "Slaughtered" could be its replacement.


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> I don't think you can actually say that somebody who was killed in battle
> whilst (by all accounts) fighting like a tiger and doing his best to kill or
> maim as many of his opponents as possible was *murdered*. He died as all
> soldiers who get unlucky died, and it's always tragic, but it isn't murder.
>

On Sunday I saw the Exibition at The Guildhall. Afterwards I went to the Greyfriars site. I stood in front of the gates (which were closed). The bells from St Martins were ringing. I turned to my left and saw the Cathedral directly in front of me. I thought that this is what Richard would have been 'hearing' for the last 527 years. I knew then  that he should be buried at Leicester.

carole


________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 15:41
Subject: Re: Re: Retinterment Location


 
Yes Carol that was particularly enlightening, and gives us an even better sense of the man as King. And Claire your statement is also a lovely one. I just hope, in the fullness of time that the name and reputation of Richard III can be changed, to reflect his nobility.

On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, "Claire M Jordan" whitehound@...@...>> wrote:



From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location

> It's particularly interesting that Richard is concerned for the dead at
> Towton, a battle fought when he was only a child.

Thanks for finding this - it's a gem. Am I right in thinking that he is
indiscrimately caring for the bodies of the soldiers of both sides, and that
"on account of affection" means someting like "having sympathy for their
plight" or "finding their fate very affecting"? That is, that he is
publicly declaring himself to be motivated by a sympathetic emotion, not
just by piety?

As far as where he is to be buried goes, although I signed that petition for
him to be buried in York I fele obliged to argue against myself and add that
it's occurred to me that even though there isn't a formal cemetary for the
dead at Bosworth, burying Richard at Leicester does mean he'd be staying
close to the men who died for and with him, and that might appeal to him
even if Leicester per se didn't.

I actually *do* know someone who suggested - not entirely seriously - starting a campaign to have Richard buried in Swindon...:-)

--- On Mon, 4/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
There's no way to make everyone happy. At least he's not being reburied in Slough!

Is Michael Hicks being illogically proprietal when he says "not Leicester"...or Prof Pollard? Neither of whom bear great affection for Richard. Or my mother-in-law who is no particular history buff but who knows of Richard's connection with the north and his terrible death and burial in Leicester? Or my father-in-law who said "how can they decide to bury him in Leicester where he died, and not in a place where he was connected?" Why is it a shame to get worked up about where this king we are all interested in, lies? Does a person's place of burial not matter? Is it not right to care about the appropriateness of where a person is laid to rest. As said before, we would not insist on murder victims being re-interred next to where they were found.

The "wherever it may be" is what is being discussed. The rest - the tomb, the honourable re-interment and respect for his remains - will happen, wherever the location is.

Richard was Northamptonshire-born. It's not unthinkable that he be re-interred there - in Fotheringhay - but not in the place where he was slaughtered and so ill-treated.

--- In , "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@...> wrote:
>
>
> I agree that we don't know what he would have wanted in these totally unprecedented circumstances and I also agree that it is quite heartening to see that so many people care, but it does seem that people are getting very uptight about it all, which is a shame.
>
> My mother, a member of the Richard III Society for over 40 years, is currently getting her knickers in a twist over this very issue ( to the extent, I'm sorry to say, of not making a donation towards the tomb if the society won't support the campaign for York ). She appears quite illogically proprietorial.
>
> My feeling, FWIW, is to rebury the poor man with the utmost respect, in a tomb that reflects his status and importance, in a consecrated place - wherever that may be - and then leave him to rest in peace.
>
> And could I just add, he was a Northamptonshire boy, born and bred. Is it so unthinkable that his final resting place should be in the Midlands?
>
>
>
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > >
> > > With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.
> > >
> > > There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oh, I agree. I just meant it's strangely uplifting that people actually spend time thinking what he *might* have wanted himself... and care so much where they think he 'belongs', one way or another.
> >
>

This ties in with Michael Jones in his book "1485 The Psychology of a Battle" stating that in 1477 Richard made an endowment to Queens' College Cambridge honouring not only his brother and father at Wakefield but also remembered by names of the humble soldiers who fought and died under his standard at Barnet and Tewkesbury. Also Bewdley, where I used to live, were given a Charter by Edward IV because the Bowmen of Bewdley fought for Richard at Tewkesbury. The only person who could have told Edward was Richard.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Yes Carol that was particularly enlightening, and gives us an even better sense of the man as King. And Claire your statement is also a lovely one. I just hope, in the fullness of time that the name and reputation of Richard III can be changed, to reflect his nobility.
>
> On Mar 4, 2013, at 9:17 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 2:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
> > It's particularly interesting that Richard is concerned for the dead at
> > Towton, a battle fought when he was only a child.
>
> Thanks for finding this - it's a gem. Am I right in thinking that he is
> indiscrimately caring for the bodies of the soldiers of both sides, and that
> "on account of affection" means someting like "having sympathy for their
> plight" or "finding their fate very affecting"? That is, that he is
> publicly declaring himself to be motivated by a sympathetic emotion, not
> just by piety?
>
> As far as where he is to be buried goes, although I signed that petition for
> him to be buried in York I fele obliged to argue against myself and add that
> it's occurred to me that even though there isn't a formal cemetary for the
> dead at Bosworth, burying Richard at Leicester does mean he'd be staying
> close to the men who died for and with him, and that might appeal to him
> even if Leicester per se didn't.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> When a person dies, is buried, usually their wishes or likely wishes are taken into account. They are buried in a location appropriate to them. This did not happen for Richard.
>
> Yes, there is no documentation to say what he wished but the English Heritage doc on Best Practice does suggest that "So far as they can be inferred" the wishes or intentions of the deceased should be taken into account. *Inferring* is what Michael Hicks and Tony Pollard and Mark Ormrod amongst thousands of others have done, and they have said "not Leicester" and more likely "York".
>
> Does a person's place of burial matter to people? Yes - we would not insist on murder victims whose remains are brought to light, being re-interred close by where they were found. Why on earth should a king's remains do so?
>
> Does it matter the case of a king brutally murdered in a place and his body despoiled and pitifully interred? All the more so.
>
> Do we have *any indication of places the deceased might have been interred, in the event of natural death* - yes, Westminster, Windsor possibly, and again, possibly York. We know his strongest connection was to York.
>
> Do we have any indication the deceased wished to be buried in St Martin's Church, in the town of Leicester? No. The deceased had no connection there other than his awful death.
>
>


I agree with all of this, too :) Actually, in my earlier message I was just agreeing that we have no recorded information where Richard himself wanted to be buried - I was a bit hasty in my response because I didn't mean to agree that 'we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st-century people think a mediaeval prince might have thought over 500 years ago', because on what other basis can we argue? He's not here now so we can only guess what he'd have answered if someone had gone up to him at Bosworth and asked, 'By the way, should this end badly, would you like to be buried around here or somewhere else?' And some guesses are more informed than others, I think.

Were it up to me, I'd say bury him in York. Were it up to me, also, I'd say make this a big historic occasion - as big as possible - indeed, if I were in charge of the funeral arrangements, I'd go completely OTT (so perhaps it's best that I'm not in charge of them ;)). It's not like we often get the chance to re-bury a mediaeval king.

But it doesn't matter what I think, really - my original point was simply that I think it's uplifting that people *care*, which is why I don't see it was unseemly wrangling or undignified or disrespectful to Richard's memory. Of course, some individual comments may be undignified and unseemly, but the argument in itself isn't. In my opinion.

OK.

As it goes, I said that *my mother* was being "illogically proprietorial" not anyone else.

But since I have no strong feelings about the burial place and since you do, I will shut up and say no more.




--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Is Michael Hicks being illogically proprietal when he says "not Leicester"...or Prof Pollard? Neither of whom bear great affection for Richard. Or my mother-in-law who is no particular history buff but who knows of Richard's connection with the north and his terrible death and burial in Leicester? Or my father-in-law who said "how can they decide to bury him in Leicester where he died, and not in a place where he was connected?" Why is it a shame to get worked up about where this king we are all interested in, lies? Does a person's place of burial not matter? Is it not right to care about the appropriateness of where a person is laid to rest. As said before, we would not insist on murder victims being re-interred next to where they were found.
>
> The "wherever it may be" is what is being discussed. The rest - the tomb, the honourable re-interment and respect for his remains - will happen, wherever the location is.
>
> Richard was Northamptonshire-born. It's not unthinkable that he be re-interred there - in Fotheringhay - but not in the place where he was slaughtered and so ill-treated.
>
> --- In , "Katherine" <katherine.michaud@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I agree that we don't know what he would have wanted in these totally unprecedented circumstances and I also agree that it is quite heartening to see that so many people care, but it does seem that people are getting very uptight about it all, which is a shame.
> >
> > My mother, a member of the Richard III Society for over 40 years, is currently getting her knickers in a twist over this very issue ( to the extent, I'm sorry to say, of not making a donation towards the tomb if the society won't support the campaign for York ). She appears quite illogically proprietorial.
> >
> > My feeling, FWIW, is to rebury the poor man with the utmost respect, in a tomb that reflects his status and importance, in a consecrated place - wherever that may be - and then leave him to rest in peace.
> >
> > And could I just add, he was a Northamptonshire boy, born and bred. Is it so unthinkable that his final resting place should be in the Midlands?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > With the greatest possible respect, we cannot argue on the basis of '...what he himself would have wanted....'  We simply don't know.  He left no recorded information on the subject.  We certainly are not privy to his thoughts and wishes - for all we know, once King, he might have been planning a great tomb in Westminster - just like Henry Tudor did so many years later.  But we don't know.
> > > >
> > > > There may be arguments for having him reburied in one place or another, but we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st century people think a Medieval Prince might have thought over 500 years ago - especially in the absence of any written record.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, I agree. I just meant it's strangely uplifting that people actually spend time thinking what he *might* have wanted himself... and care so much where they think he 'belongs', one way or another.
> > >
> >
>

Let us face it, we all want Richard, no matter where we are in the country. It is a measure of his popularity during his lifetime and still now, after over 500 years.I would like him in Gloucester, but there is no truly valid reason for him to be here or anywhere else in particular. Provided he gets the honourable burial he is due, and is restored to the full respect he deserves, I am sure he would not mind which town, county, village has his remains. He was King of England, not just York, Leicester, Westminster, or whatever. English soil is what matters, and all due reverence.

"Claire M Jordan" wrote:

> Thanks for finding this - it's a gem. Am I right in thinking that he is indiscrimately caring for the bodies of the soldiers of both sides, and that "on account of affection" means someting like "having sympathy for their plight" or "finding their fate very affecting"? That is, that he is publicly declaring himself to be motivated by a sympathetic emotion, not just by piety? [snip]

Carol responds:

Yes, that's the impression I got. I don't know offhand who died at Towton that Richard could have known personally, so unless he means affection for his late brother, Edward, many of whose men died there, the affection (or sympathy) must, as you say, extend to the men on both sides and even to their families. It seems to be just one of many wrongs that Richard was trying to right. He had already been involved in the reburial of his father and his brother Edmund, and he had even had Henry VI moved to a more fitting burial site. He was in all respects a remarkable man. The more I learn about him, the more I admire him.

I like your thought (which I snipped) about Richard wanting to be buried along with the men who died for him. I have no idea what the Tydder did about the known dead (Norfolk, Brackenbury, Ratcliffe and others. Since they were "traitors," perhaps he did nothing even though Richard's heralds could have helped him identify any dead members of the nobility or even mere knights. (Whether Tudor had any heralds of his own or not, I don't know. The Stanleys would have recognized some of the dead, but it wasn't their job to identify them. The wounded Thomas Howard, Earl of Surrey (Norfolk's eldest son) was arrested after the battle, IIRC, so he could not have claimed his father's body for burial.)

Carol

I probably didn't phrase it very thoughtfully, but when I said that people want to claim him as "a northern King", I think their very intention is to reinforce the idea that he was indeed King of the whole country, and that England's history does not reside exclusively in London - that we did once have a King who made his reputation as an administrator in northern England, and who consciously sought to strengthen his estates and holdings there, as well as his affinity as such - often relinquishing valuable lands in other parts of the country to do so. 
The argument about burying him where he can perceived as King of the whole country does apply equally to Leicester - and from that point of view I personally would favour it over London - but as others have said, the other side of the discussion is about what seems appropriate to Richard, as far as this can be promised in the absence of any written wishes. 
As far as accessibility, York is very well-visited, as are the dales, Moors and so on, and it could be argued that people are more likely to visit a tomb there than to make a dedicated trip to Leicester, unless they are really determined Ricardians. 

--- On Mon, 4/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:




Carol responds:



As I said before, what he wanted as duke of Gloucester and what he wanted as king may have been two different things. Most likely, if he had died in his bed like his brother, he would have wanted to be buried in Westminster Abbey alongside his wife, Anne--and would have wanted it that way. Obviously, that's not the best solution now. But if I must take sides in this unseemly dispute over Richard's remains, it seems best to treat him not as a Northern king, York's "possession," but the king of the whole country, buried in a central location accessible to all. Why reinforce his reputation as a Northern king when he had loyal followers from the Midlands as well as the North: Catesby, Tyrrell, and Norfolk (assuming that the Howards lived in Norfolk, which may be incorrect), not to mention Brampton, who wasn't even English?



It's a good thing that England is a small country. Imagine if we were talking thousands of miles as in the United States!



Carol

Exactly.

--- On Mon, 4/3/13, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
 my original point was simply that I think it's uplifting that people *care*, which is why I don't see it was unseemly wrangling or undignified or disrespectful to Richard's memory. Of course, some individual comments may be undignified and unseemly, but the argument in itself isn't. In my opinion.

I'd have argued for Gloucester too, when I was a Ricardian as a child because it was nearest where I lived...;-) Unlike with my modern historical interests, who came complete with photos, film and so forth, it's very hard to get a sense of "contact" with a person of that era if you don't have a site you can visit. I did get a sense of contact in Yorkshire, ultimately, through Middleham Castle and so forth - but Gloucester did not give me any similar feeling. He has always been sort of "absent" there, despite his title - at least to me. Just my personal reaction!
--- On Mon, 4/3/13, SandraMachin <sandramachin@...> wrote:

From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Reburial
To:
Date: Monday, 4 March, 2013, 17:12
















 









Let us face it, we all want Richard, no matter where we are in the country. It is a measure of his popularity during his lifetime and still now, after over 500 years.I would like him in Gloucester, but there is no truly valid reason for him to be here or anywhere else in particular. Provided he gets the honourable burial he is due, and is restored to the full respect he deserves, I am sure he would not mind which town, county, village has his remains. He was King of England, not just York, Leicester, Westminster, or whatever. English soil is what matters, and all due reverence.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
> Were it up to me, I'd say bury him in York. Were it up to me, also, I'd say make this a big historic occasion - as big as possible - indeed, if I were in charge of the funeral arrangements, I'd go completely OTT (so perhaps it's best that I'm not in charge of them ;)). It's not like we often get the chance to re-bury a mediaeval king.
>
> But it doesn't matter what I think, really - my original point was simply that I think it's uplifting that people *care*, which is why I don't see it was unseemly wrangling or undignified or disrespectful to Richard's memory. Of course, some individual comments may be undignified and unseemly, but the argument in itself isn't. In my opinion.
>

And just because it annoys me that I sound so gormless and flippant in the message above, I *have to* add that I actually feel very strongly about this. But I feel like it isn't my battle to fight (much as I'd like to be) as I'm not in the UK, nor do I have any English blood in me. I'm not even allowed to sign the petition! (Big sigh.)

My connection to Richard is based on a mixture of intellectual curiosity, sentimentality, and more than a sprinkle of insanity, so - on the basis of all that - it isn't my place to tell the English what they should do with their King.

(... I just hope they make the right decision, so I won't have to conquer their country and do it for them. Ahem.)

From: ricard1an
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Retinterment Location


> This ties in with Michael Jones in his book "1485 The Psychology of a
> Battle" stating that in 1477 Richard made an endowment to Queens' College
> Cambridge honouring not only his brother and father at Wakefield but also
> remembered by names of the humble soldiers who fought and died under his
> standard at Barnet and Tewkesbury.

The more one learns about Richard's proveable actions, the less and less he
sounds like somebody who might knock off a couple of schoolboys because they
were an inconvenience to him, anbd the more and more like somebody who would
always at least try to do what he conceived to be the Right Thing, even when
it was inconvenient.

I know what is meant by having a sense of contact, but strangely, when I've been to Yorkshire, I haven't felt it. Bosworth Field fares better in that respect, perhaps because it was the climactic moment of his life. It's the moment that binds us all now because it opened the flood gates for the poisonously successful malice of the Tudors.

colyngbourne wrote:
[snip]
> Yes, there is no documentation to say what he wished but the English Heritage doc on Best Practice does suggest that "So far as they can be inferred" the wishes or intentions of the deceased should be taken into account. *Inferring* is what Michael Hicks and Tony Pollard and Mark Ormrod amongst thousands of others have done, and they have said "not Leicester" and more likely "York". [snip]

Carol responds:

Forgive me, Col. I know how strongly you feel about this issue, and I'm not being snide. It just seems to me that citing the opinions of moderate traditionalists (that is, moderately anti-Ricardian) historians like Pollard and full-on traditionalists like Hicks (who has called Richard a "serial incestor" for marrying his first cousin once removed *ostensibly* without the requisite papal dispensations and then *ostensibly* wanting to marry his niece--he's wrong on both counts) is a rather odd way to support your argument. And who is Mark Ormrod? I've never heard of him.

I notice that the Duke of Gloucester, the Society's patron, is being diplomatically noncommital on the matter of the burial place. But what about Annette, J A-H, and other nontraditionalist Ricardian scholars? What do they say on the matter? If someone with impeccable scholarly (and Ricardian) credentials such as Rosemary Horrox were to speak out in favor of York, that would hold a lot more weight with me than the opinions of Pollard or Hicks. (Asking Hicks's view of where Richard should be reburied is like asking the late Jeremy Potter what we should do with the remains of Henry VII if Westminster Cathedral were due for demolition.)

Carol

Mark Ormrod is Professor of History at York. I've seen him interviewed about York's petition and he was very impressive and fair about Richard. But that's all I know about him.



--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, there is no documentation to say what he wished but the English Heritage doc on Best Practice does suggest that "So far as they can be inferred" the wishes or intentions of the deceased should be taken into account. *Inferring* is what Michael Hicks and Tony Pollard and Mark Ormrod amongst thousands of others have done, and they have said "not Leicester" and more likely "York". [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Forgive me, Col. I know how strongly you feel about this issue, and I'm not being snide. It just seems to me that citing the opinions of moderate traditionalists (that is, moderately anti-Ricardian) historians like Pollard and full-on traditionalists like Hicks (who has called Richard a "serial incestor" for marrying his first cousin once removed *ostensibly* without the requisite papal dispensations and then *ostensibly* wanting to marry his niece--he's wrong on both counts) is a rather odd way to support your argument. And who is Mark Ormrod? I've never heard of him.
>
> I notice that the Duke of Gloucester, the Society's patron, is being diplomatically noncommital on the matter of the burial place. But what about Annette, J A-H, and other nontraditionalist Ricardian scholars? What do they say on the matter? If someone with impeccable scholarly (and Ricardian) credentials such as Rosemary Horrox were to speak out in favor of York, that would hold a lot more weight with me than the opinions of Pollard or Hicks. (Asking Hicks's view of where Richard should be reburied is like asking the late Jeremy Potter what we should do with the remains of Henry VII if Westminster Cathedral were due for demolition.)
>
> Carol
>

I agree.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: ricard1an
> To:
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> > This ties in with Michael Jones in his book "1485 The Psychology of a
> > Battle" stating that in 1477 Richard made an endowment to Queens' College
> > Cambridge honouring not only his brother and father at Wakefield but also
> > remembered by names of the humble soldiers who fought and died under his
> > standard at Barnet and Tewkesbury.
>
> The more one learns about Richard's proveable actions, the less and less he
> sounds like somebody who might knock off a couple of schoolboys because they
> were an inconvenience to him, anbd the more and more like somebody who would
> always at least try to do what he conceived to be the Right Thing, even when
> it was inconvenient.
>

I am not a scholar or professional, but simply a person who has always thought better of Richard III than history books would liked to have me think.

I have to admit that I never thought about tourist dollars when Richard's remains were discovered.It makes truly sad that that this remarkable achievement (finding him) has been reduced to dollars and cents.

I am not erudite or scholarly enough to chime in to the discussion about where he would actually preferred to spend the rest of human time, but I think an argument can be made for the North. What person would willingly want to have their remains stay in the place where they were slaughtered and abased?

His remains were discovered , thanks to Ms. Langley's hunch, under a car park spot marked with the letter "R". I'd like to hear her opinion about this issue....though perhaps I missed and it has already been posted.

I hate it when humans reduce everything to dollars and cent (or pence). This is an unbelievable historical find, and this decision should not be made for monetary gain. I understand that Leicester used their precious, hard to come by, university funds for the dig but King Richard III ruled England, the country - not Leicester, the town and the decision should be made for the good of the country.
Marie Z. Johansen
a non scholar who believes in the good of Richar III


--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In many ways, this wrangling over where his bones should lie does not help either the image of the Society or the historical study of Richard, his life and times.  Whatever the motivation of the people concerned, the overwhelming image which comes through the media reporting about it, is that it is a tug-of-war over a future source of tourist money.
> >
> > I find it sad, that after years of wrangling over Richard's reputation, now that he has been found, there is still wrangling going on over where he should lie.
> >
> > It is not a pleasant image.
> >
>
>
> I see this a bit differently... rather than unseemly wrangling, I think it's strangely uplifting that people care so passionately about a long-dead king's thoughts and wishes that they argue what he himself would have wanted. Not just Ricardians, either.
>

Janet Ashton wrote:
>
> I'd have argued for Gloucester too, when I was a Ricardian as a child because it was nearest where I lived...;-) Unlike with my modern historical interests, who came complete with photos, film and so forth, it's very hard to get a sense of "contact" with a person of that era if you don't have a site you can visit. I did get a sense of contact in Yorkshire, ultimately, through Middleham Castle and so forth - but Gloucester did not give me any similar feeling. He has always been sort of "absent" there, despite his title - at least to me. Just my personal reaction!

Carol responds:

He did (IIRC) give the city of Gloucester a charter on his progress northward in 1483, but I can't think of any other connection to that city other than his title.

What was the city or town proposed by an MP early in the debate as halfway between York and Leicester? I'm beginning to think that his proposal ought to have been taken seriously!

Carol

Ive.said this before...but I will mention it again...York Minster or the people that are in charge of it have not, as far as I know, ,ever made any request or offer for Richard to be reburied there. Therefore I read this as that they are not interested. Why this should be I know not....no room/too expensive/too much unheaval...it matters not...the bottom line is they have not shown any inclination..Are those who would like to see him interred there going to insist on it? Im inclined to think if they dont want him then sod them...Let him stay in Leicester...at least they want him. P.S. If I am wrong about York Minster's disinterest in living Richard a place Im sure I will be corrected and I will of course I will apologise...my excuse being..well I havent heard about an offer from York so it cannot be very strident. Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
> [snip]
> > Yes, there is no documentation to say what he wished but the English Heritage doc on Best Practice does suggest that "So far as they can be inferred" the wishes or intentions of the deceased should be taken into account. *Inferring* is what Michael Hicks and Tony Pollard and Mark Ormrod amongst thousands of others have done, and they have said "not Leicester" and more likely "York". [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Forgive me, Col. I know how strongly you feel about this issue, and I'm not being snide. It just seems to me that citing the opinions of moderate traditionalists (that is, moderately anti-Ricardian) historians like Pollard and full-on traditionalists like Hicks (who has called Richard a "serial incestor" for marrying his first cousin once removed *ostensibly* without the requisite papal dispensations and then *ostensibly* wanting to marry his niece--he's wrong on both counts) is a rather odd way to support your argument. And who is Mark Ormrod? I've never heard of him.
>
> I notice that the Duke of Gloucester, the Society's patron, is being diplomatically noncommital on the matter of the burial place. But what about Annette, J A-H, and other nontraditionalist Ricardian scholars? What do they say on the matter? If someone with impeccable scholarly (and Ricardian) credentials such as Rosemary Horrox were to speak out in favor of York, that would hold a lot more weight with me than the opinions of Pollard or Hicks. (Asking Hicks's view of where Richard should be reburied is like asking the late Jeremy Potter what we should do with the remains of Henry VII if Westminster Cathedral were due for demolition.)
>
> Carol
>

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Ive.said this before...but I will mention it again...York Minster or the people that are in charge of it have not, as far as I know, ,ever made any request or offer for Richard to be reburied there. Therefore I read this as that they are not interested. [snip]

Carol responds:

This article is a bit dated since the petition had only 11,000 signatures when it was written, but I think it makes clear York Minster's position: They have officially yielded the right to Richard's reburial to Leicester, making the petition a moot point:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21373538

So it seems that regardless of the feeling of many Ricardians and citizens of York, the Minster officials have declined the honor. it would be awkward, to say the least, if they changed their minds now.

Carol

Worksop.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial



Janet Ashton wrote:
>
> I'd have argued for Gloucester too, when I was a Ricardian as a child because it was nearest where I lived...;-) Unlike with my modern historical interests, who came complete with photos, film and so forth, it's very hard to get a sense of "contact" with a person of that era if you don't have a site you can visit. I did get a sense of contact in Yorkshire, ultimately, through Middleham Castle and so forth - but Gloucester did not give me any similar feeling. He has always been sort of "absent" there, despite his title - at least to me. Just my personal reaction!

Carol responds:

He did (IIRC) give the city of Gloucester a charter on his progress northward in 1483, but I can't think of any other connection to that city other than his title.

What was the city or town proposed by an MP early in the debate as halfway between York and Leicester? I'm beginning to think that his proposal ought to have been taken seriously!

Carol

--- In , "Stephen Lark" <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Worksop.
>

Oh, dear lord. Really? :O(
>
>
>
>

I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!

I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".

I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Forgive me, Col. I know how strongly you feel about this issue, and I'm not being snide. It just seems to me that citing the opinions of moderate traditionalists (that is, moderately anti-Ricardian) historians like Pollard and full-on traditionalists like Hicks (who has called Richard a "serial incestor" for marrying his first cousin once removed *ostensibly* without the requisite papal dispensations and then *ostensibly* wanting to marry his niece--he's wrong on both counts) is a rather odd way to support your argument. And who is Mark Ormrod? I've never heard of him.
>
> I notice that the Duke of Gloucester, the Society's patron, is being diplomatically noncommital on the matter of the burial place. But what about Annette, J A-H, and other nontraditionalist Ricardian scholars? What do they say on the matter? If someone with impeccable scholarly (and Ricardian) credentials such as Rosemary Horrox were to speak out in favor of York, that would hold a lot more weight with me than the opinions of Pollard or Hicks. (Asking Hicks's view of where Richard should be reburied is like asking the late Jeremy Potter what we should do with the remains of Henry VII if Westminster Cathedral were due for demolition.)
>
> Carol
>

I do agree that York Minster are in an awkward position. Especially since their new Dean was Dean of Leicester when the pre-dig decision to re-inter there was made, and when the remains were actually found.

However, although their public statement remains as it is for the moment, if you send an email to them about the matter, their official response now is that they are "collating opinions and working with York City Council and the Society".

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Ive.said this before...but I will mention it again...York Minster or the people that are in charge of it have not, as far as I know, ,ever made any request or offer for Richard to be reburied there. Therefore I read this as that they are not interested. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> This article is a bit dated since the petition had only 11,000 signatures when it was written, but I think it makes clear York Minster's position: They have officially yielded the right to Richard's reburial to Leicester, making the petition a moot point:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-21373538
>
> So it seems that regardless of the feeling of many Ricardians and citizens of York, the Minster officials have declined the honor. it would be awkward, to say the least, if they changed their minds now.
>
> Carol
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial


> I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter
> in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?

Just by the by, but it occurs to me that Richard, who cared so much about
the poor, might actually think that "Leicester really needs the tourist
income" was a valid reason....

As I've said to Carol, I'm sorry if I come across a little impassioned (to say the least) and I misinterpreted your post.

I think that, should it be the case that Richard's remains were to come to York, I would, like you, want it to be a big historic occasion. A processional route stopping in various places, a celebration of life in late medieval times. How often do you discover the lost remains of a King of England?

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:

> I agree with all of this, too :) Actually, in my earlier message I was just agreeing that we have no recorded information where Richard himself wanted to be buried - I was a bit hasty in my response because I didn't mean to agree that 'we cannot argue on the basis of what 21st-century people think a mediaeval prince might have thought over 500 years ago', because on what other basis can we argue? He's not here now so we can only guess what he'd have answered if someone had gone up to him at Bosworth and asked, 'By the way, should this end badly, would you like to be buried around here or somewhere else?' And some guesses are more informed than others, I think.
>
> Were it up to me, I'd say bury him in York. Were it up to me, also, I'd say make this a big historic occasion - as big as possible - indeed, if I were in charge of the funeral arrangements, I'd go completely OTT (so perhaps it's best that I'm not in charge of them ;)). It's not like we often get the chance to re-bury a mediaeval king.
>
> But it doesn't matter what I think, really - my original point was simply that I think it's uplifting that people *care*, which is why I don't see it was unseemly wrangling or undignified or disrespectful to Richard's memory. Of course, some individual comments may be undignified and unseemly, but the argument in itself isn't. In my opinion.
>

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!
>
> I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".
>
> I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?

Carol responds:

If it's any comfort, I think that Richard would have regarded any cathedral, or even any church, as the house of God. And the people of Leicester in 1485 had nothing to do with the battle or with the scandalous treatment that Richard received at the hands of Stanley's men (or French mercenaries or Welsh traitors). I'm quite certain that most of them were as appalled as you or I would be to witness the humiliation of a dead enemy, especially an anointed king.

Carol

I have to say colyngbourne while I can understand your wanting to bury Richard at York ( personally, and I don't know why, I am very relaxed about him being buried at Leicester) I am not happy about Hicks and Pollard's opinions even being considered. Neither of them have, in my opinion, done any meaningful research into Richard they have merely accepted More and secondary sources and sought to try to prove that he was an even bigger villain than Shakespeare described.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!
>
> I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".
>
> I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Forgive me, Col. I know how strongly you feel about this issue, and I'm not being snide. It just seems to me that citing the opinions of moderate traditionalists (that is, moderately anti-Ricardian) historians like Pollard and full-on traditionalists like Hicks (who has called Richard a "serial incestor" for marrying his first cousin once removed *ostensibly* without the requisite papal dispensations and then *ostensibly* wanting to marry his niece--he's wrong on both counts) is a rather odd way to support your argument. And who is Mark Ormrod? I've never heard of him.
> >
> > I notice that the Duke of Gloucester, the Society's patron, is being diplomatically noncommital on the matter of the burial place. But what about Annette, J A-H, and other nontraditionalist Ricardian scholars? What do they say on the matter? If someone with impeccable scholarly (and Ricardian) credentials such as Rosemary Horrox were to speak out in favor of York, that would hold a lot more weight with me than the opinions of Pollard or Hicks. (Asking Hicks's view of where Richard should be reburied is like asking the late Jeremy Potter what we should do with the remains of Henry VII if Westminster Cathedral were due for demolition.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I'm sure he did. But I'm equally sure he would not have chosen to be buried in Leicester. I know his mistreatment was likely at the hands of soldiers, rather than any residents of Leicester, but we do not inter people who are killed in a place in that place. We take them to a place appropriate to them, to their life, and not to their place of death. Should I happen to be killed in a town, I hope to God my family or whoever finds me, buries me somewhere I would wish for myself, and not in the church next door. If we would wish this for ourselves and our loved ones, why not for Richard.


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol responds:
>
> If it's any comfort, I think that Richard would have regarded any cathedral, or even any church, as the house of God. And the people of Leicester in 1485 had nothing to do with the battle or with the scandalous treatment that Richard received at the hands of Stanley's men (or French mercenaries or Welsh traitors). I'm quite certain that most of them were as appalled as you or I would be to witness the humiliation of a dead enemy, especially an anointed king.
>
> Carol
>

As a Married man to a [Apparent] 'Childhood Sweetheart' maybe lying next to his wife would be best, however it is 'Bigger' than 'Sheriff Hutton' now??
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 19:47
>Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial
>
>
> 
>
>
>--- In , colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!
>>
>> I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".
>>
>> I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?
>
>Carol responds:
>
>If it's any comfort, I think that Richard would have regarded any cathedral, or even any church, as the house of God. And the people of Leicester in 1485 had nothing to do with the battle or with the scandalous treatment that Richard received at the hands of Stanley's men (or French mercenaries or Welsh traitors). I'm quite certain that most of them were as appalled as you or I would be to witness the humiliation of a dead enemy, especially an anointed king.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

New to this site and making my first post :) I haven't seen it mentioned yet so I wanted to through this out there and see what people's thoughts were: Regarding Richard's interment site, what do you think of burial at Windsor next to the brother he served so loyally for so long?

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> As a Married man to a [Apparent] 'Childhood Sweetheart' maybe lying next to his wife would be best, however it is 'Bigger' than 'Sheriff Hutton' now??
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 19:47
> >Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , colyngbourne wrote:
> >>
> >> I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!
> >>
> >> I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".
> >>
> >> I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >If it's any comfort, I think that Richard would have regarded any cathedral, or even any church, as the house of God. And the people of Leicester in 1485 had nothing to do with the battle or with the scandalous treatment that Richard received at the hands of Stanley's men (or French mercenaries or Welsh traitors). I'm quite certain that most of them were as appalled as you or I would be to witness the humiliation of a dead enemy, especially an anointed king.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I'm sorry folks but are we achieving anything by doing this to death (sorry for the pun)? Unfortunately or fortunately it's out of our hands and he'll likely get a decent burial wherever it is. I'd love him to be buried where he wanted; it could be the Outer Hebrides, I don't care. But as he didn't leave a Will and scholars, societies, committees, you name it, are likely to be arguing forever, can't we just accept the inevitable and be glad we've at last got a body to bury and honour. H.




--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> As a Married man to a [Apparent] 'Childhood Sweetheart' maybe lying next to his wife would be best, however it is 'Bigger' than 'Sheriff Hutton' now??
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 19:47
> >Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >--- In , colyngbourne wrote:
> >>
> >> I apologise for being quite so impassioned about this - I will give over soon, honest!
> >>
> >> I mentioned Hicks and Pollard as they are two well-known academics who generally can speak on whether Richard had connections with a particular place and have actually spoken on this in the last three weeks. They weren't asked where Richard *should* be buried (in their opinion) but where might Richard have wished to be buried - Pollard said "York", Hicks said "definitely not Leicester".
> >>
> >> I am just not understanding how it is acceptable to re-inter this king in this place that is so inappropriate to him. The murder victim analogy is not precise, I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >If it's any comfort, I think that Richard would have regarded any cathedral, or even any church, as the house of God. And the people of Leicester in 1485 had nothing to do with the battle or with the scandalous treatment that Richard received at the hands of Stanley's men (or French mercenaries or Welsh traitors). I'm quite certain that most of them were as appalled as you or I would be to witness the humiliation of a dead enemy, especially an anointed king.
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Well it sounds like the kind of thing he might think!  I have to admit that although I don't really mind (just as well!) where he is buried, all the anti Leicester stuff out there makes me more inclined to support them and although I don't wish I'd grown up in Leicester, I would have loved to have gone to the King Richard III School for Girls! 



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's Reburial

 
From: colyngbourne
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's Reburial

> I know but it's as close as I can get - how can it be right to re-inter
> in Leicester and not elsewhere, somewhere more appropriate to Richard?

Just by the by, but it occurs to me that Richard, who cared so much about
the poor, might actually think that "Leicester really needs the tourist
income" was a valid reason....

Sorry Carole, I would never YELL at you,I was just trying to 'Emphasise' my points, I have Peripheral Neuropathy and my [Never very good] typing is rubbish. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 16:16
>Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> 
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>>   I would hate to be associated with ANY nasty remarks against ANY city or individual.
>>
>>   However in View of the possible conflict developing, perhaps the BEST SOLUTION would be a 'Democratic One', either a Minister decides [Democratically elected] or the 'Prime Minister decides based on the call on him by the people' Current Petition.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Which would ignore the feelings of Ricardians in other countries. There's no way to make everyone happy. At least he's not being reburied in Slough!
>
>You really are addicted to that CAPSLOCK key. Has no one ever told you that all capitals violates Internet etiquette and is considered YELLING?
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Hilary wrote:
>
> I'm sorry folks but are we achieving anything by doing this to death (sorry for the pun)? Unfortunately or fortunately it's out of our hands and he'll likely get a decent burial wherever it is. I'd love him to be buried where he wanted; it could be the Outer Hebrides, I don't care. But as he didn't leave a Will and scholars, societies, committees, you name it, are likely to be arguing forever, can't we just accept the inevitable and be glad we've at last got a body to bury and honour. H.

Carol responds:

He may have left a will, but, if so, it's no longer extant. If Henry ordered the Titulus burned unread (and we know that he did), I wouldn't put it past him to destroy Richard's will, especially if it stipulated an heir. He would, of course, conveniently ignore any request for a particular burial place.

If Richard went into battle without a will, it must have been either because he expected to win or because he knew that if Henry won, he wouldn't honor Richard's wishes. If he had won Bosworth, married Joanna of Portugal (or Isabella of Spain, daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella) and had fathered a child, particularly a son, he certainly would have made a will. I suspect that he made one when Edward of Middleham was born, too, but, of course, that will would have been unprovable, or whatever the legal term is.}

Johann, if you're reading this, we need your legal expertise!

And I agree with Hilary that we've probably said all that can be said regarding York vs. Leicester as a resting place for Richard. The, er, disagreement has given those journalists who see Ricardians as "nutters" a field day (though, admittedly, they've been for the most part more friendly since the first press conference impressed them with the importance of the Leicester find and caused at least some of them to distinguish between Shakespeare's villain and the historical Richard.

Carol

Arthur wrote:
>
> Sorry Carole, I would never YELL at you,I was just trying to 'Emphasise' my points, I have Peripheral Neuropathy and my [Never very good] typing is rubbish. 

Carol responds:

Thanks, Arthur. That's Carol with no "e" (we have two Carols, two Caroles, and a Coral on this list, so I know it's confusing). Is it possible to use *asterisks" to emphasize your points? My typing isn't that great, either, but fortunately Yahoo's spell check puts squiggly red lines under my errors so I can generally correct them. (However, it thinks your British spelling is incorrect and wants me to change "neuropathy" to homeopathy"!

Cheers,
Carol

I will try to improve. If only it was 'Homoeopathy'!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, 4 March 2013, 21:43
>Subject: Re: Retinterment Location
>
>
> 
>
>Arthur wrote:
>>
>> Sorry Carole, I would never YELL at you,I was just trying to 'Emphasise' my points, I have Peripheral Neuropathy and my [Never very good] typing is rubbish. 
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Thanks, Arthur. That's Carol with no "e" (we have two Carols, two Caroles, and a Coral on this list, so I know it's confusing). Is it possible to use *asterisks" to emphasize your points? My typing isn't that great, either, but fortunately Yahoo's spell check puts squiggly red lines under my errors so I can generally correct them. (However, it thinks your British spelling is incorrect and wants me to change "neuropathy" to homeopathy"!
>
>Cheers,
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Westminster. York. Leicester.

If you tell me which one will restore him to life, I'll gladly fight for that one.

Otherwise, I'll go to whoever wants him. Whoever makes room for him. I'll touch cold stone and whisper my respect. I'll hope he's at peace and knows he's still loved, wherever he may be now.

~Wednesday

The North-South divide in this country still holds on many levels and I think it is possible to read the reburial arguments as being about more than bones and money but also an emotional response to modern day inequalities.

A person identified with the north is found after going missing for c400 years - big cheers. But his remains are going to be kept in the south (it's definitely south from York), representatives from that city are going to talk time and again about the money they'll make from the grave, a marked lack of respect to one of the north's own. There's no attempt at discussion, at inclusion in conversation about what will happen to the remains or commemorations. It's presented as a fait accompli -which doesn't work well in our modern, anti-hierarchy society - without apparent consideration given by the organisations concerned to stakeholder mapping or management even once it became apparent they had found Richard's remains.

This plus a lousy economic situation that is only set to get worse oop north where there's less padding than the south, a southern based national leadership that doesn't seem to listen to the people... Is it any wonder this has become an entangled, poisonous mess?

Some thoughtful leadership would be good to see. Maybe a group made up of RIII Society -however unwilling they may be, they with Phillippa set this whole thing off and need to be working on the fall-out of the dig - Leicester Cathedral and York Minster could look at doing a series of town halls, streamed two-way conversations online, explaining rather than declaiming decisions. Aiming for inclusion not exclusion.

Sorry, long post. It is so frustrating that for the lack of engagement, something that should be so exciting for people interested in Richard should turn into something so sour.

Kate

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> I probably didn't phrase it very thoughtfully, but when I said that people want to claim him as "a northern King", I think their very intention is to reinforce the idea that he was indeed King of the whole country, and that England's history does not reside exclusively in London - that we did once have a King who made his reputation as an administrator in northern England, and who consciously sought to strengthen his estates and holdings there, as well as his affinity as such - often relinquishing valuable lands in other parts of the country to do so. 
> The argument about burying him where he can perceived as King of the whole country does apply equally to Leicester - and from that point of view I personally would favour it over London - but as others have said, the other side of the discussion is about what seems appropriate to Richard, as far as this can be promised in the absence of any written wishes. 
> As far as accessibility, York is very well-visited, as are the dales, Moors and so on, and it could be argued that people are more likely to visit a tomb there than to make a dedicated trip to Leicester, unless they are really determined Ricardians. 
>

I do agree with particularly the last paragraphs of your post. You'll see from a very recent post that those aiming to make money out of re-inforcing the villain idea are already out there. I think in the UK we've underestimated the interest; it's a topic of conversation at the most unusual places I go. You could start with the older towns associated, however loosely with Richard - York (or course), Nottingham, Coventry, Norwich (to represent East Anglia) Gloucester, to  name but a few. H


________________________________
From: katewescombe <katewescombe@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:19
Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann

 



The North-South divide in this country still holds on many levels and I think it is possible to read the reburial arguments as being about more than bones and money but also an emotional response to modern day inequalities.

A person identified with the north is found after going missing for c400 years - big cheers. But his remains are going to be kept in the south (it's definitely south from York), representatives from that city are going to talk time and again about the money they'll make from the grave, a marked lack of respect to one of the north's own. There's no attempt at discussion, at inclusion in conversation about what will happen to the remains or commemorations. It's presented as a fait accompli -which doesn't work well in our modern, anti-hierarchy society - without apparent consideration given by the organisations concerned to stakeholder mapping or management even once it became apparent they had found Richard's remains.

This plus a lousy economic situation that is only set to get worse oop north where there's less padding than the south, a southern based national leadership that doesn't seem to listen to the people... Is it any wonder this has become an entangled, poisonous mess?

Some thoughtful leadership would be good to see. Maybe a group made up of RIII Society -however unwilling they may be, they with Phillippa set this whole thing off and need to be working on the fall-out of the dig - Leicester Cathedral and York Minster could look at doing a series of town halls, streamed two-way conversations online, explaining rather than declaiming decisions. Aiming for inclusion not exclusion.

Sorry, long post. It is so frustrating that for the lack of engagement, something that should be so exciting for people interested in Richard should turn into something so sour.

Kate

--- In , Janet Ashton wrote:
>
> I probably didn't phrase it very thoughtfully, but when I said that people want to claim him as "a northern King", I think their very intention is to reinforce the idea that he was indeed King of the whole country, and that England's history does not reside exclusively in London - that we did once have a King who made his reputation as an administrator in northern England, and who consciously sought to strengthen his estates and holdings there, as well as his affinity as such - often relinquishing valuable lands in other parts of the country to do so. 
> The argument about burying him where he can perceived as King of the whole country does apply equally to Leicester - and from that point of view I personally would favour it over London - but as others have said, the other side of the discussion is about what seems appropriate to Richard, as far as this can be promised in the absence of any written wishes. 
> As far as accessibility, York is very well-visited, as are the dales, Moors and so on, and it could be argued that people are more likely to visit a tomb there than to make a dedicated trip to Leicester, unless they are really determined Ricardians. 
>

When I googled Richard's name a few weeks ago I found football forums discussing him - Leicester City at least, but others too. The level of interest has been extraordinary.
 
I too agree with Kate's post - this should have been handled quite differently once people  suspected they probably did have Richard.

--- On Tue, 5/3/13, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:


From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
Subject: Re: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann
To: "" <>
Date: Tuesday, 5 March, 2013, 12:31



 



I do agree with particularly the last paragraphs of your post. You'll see from a very recent post that those aiming to make money out of re-inforcing the villain idea are already out there. I think in the UK we've underestimated the interest; it's a topic of conversation at the most unusual places I go. You could start with the older towns associated, however loosely with Richard - York (or course), Nottingham, Coventry, Norwich (to represent East Anglia) Gloucester, to  name but a few. H


________________________________
From: katewescombe katewescombe@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 5 March 2013, 12:19
Subject: Re: HRH the Duke of Gloucester speaks up (Was: Richard Replacing Ann

 


The North-South divide in this country still holds on many levels and I think it is possible to read the reburial arguments as being about more than bones and money but also an emotional response to modern day inequalities.

A person identified with the north is found after going missing for c400 years - big cheers. But his remains are going to be kept in the south (it's definitely south from York), representatives from that city are going to talk time and again about the money they'll make from the grave, a marked lack of respect to one of the north's own. There's no attempt at discussion, at inclusion in conversation about what will happen to the remains or commemorations. It's presented as a fait accompli -which doesn't work well in our modern, anti-hierarchy society - without apparent consideration given by the organisations concerned to stakeholder mapping or management even once it became apparent they had found Richard's remains.

This plus a lousy economic situation that is only set to get worse oop north where there's less padding than the south, a southern based national leadership that doesn't seem to listen to the people... Is it any wonder this has become an entangled, poisonous mess?

Some thoughtful leadership would be good to see. Maybe a group made up of RIII Society -however unwilling they may be, they with Phillippa set this whole thing off and need to be working on the fall-out of the dig - Leicester Cathedral and York Minster could look at doing a series of town halls, streamed two-way conversations online, explaining rather than declaiming decisions. Aiming for inclusion not exclusion.

Sorry, long post. It is so frustrating that for the lack of engagement, something that should be so exciting for people interested in Richard should turn into something so sour.

Kate

--- In , Janet Ashton wrote:
>
> I probably didn't phrase it very thoughtfully, but when I said that people want to claim him as "a northern King", I think their very intention is to reinforce the idea that he was indeed King of the whole country, and that England's history does not reside exclusively in London - that we did once have a King who made his reputation as an administrator in northern England, and who consciously sought to strengthen his estates and holdings there, as well as his affinity as such - often relinquishing valuable lands in other parts of the country to do so. 
> The argument about burying him where he can perceived as King of the whole country does apply equally to Leicester - and from that point of view I personally would favour it over London - but as others have said, the other side of the discussion is about what seems appropriate to Richard, as far as this can be promised in the absence of any written wishes. 
> As far as accessibility, York is very well-visited, as are the dales, Moors and so on, and it could be argued that people are more likely to visit a tomb there than to make a dedicated trip to Leicester, unless they are really determined Ricardians. 
>