Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
It's in the Leicester Mercury
York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.

Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Hi Christine,
 
Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'


________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
It's in the Leicester Mercury
York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.

Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
Come on society committee.
God Bless Richard.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Christine,
>  
> Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
>
> Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> It's in the Leicester Mercury
> York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
>
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
>
>
>

The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 



Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
Come on society committee.
God Bless Richard.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Christine,
>  
> Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
>
> Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> It's in the Leicester Mercury
> York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
>
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't
want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.

Sheesh - I was warming to the idea of Leicester, but not if they're not
going to do the thing properly.

I don't personally like the design for the tomb very much - but it needs to
be *a* tomb, either free-standing or recessed into a suitable niche, and not
just a slab. Ten thousand people willw ant to lay flowers and they don't
want them all over the floor!

Well I was happy with Leicester but they may have just lost my vote.  If there's enough room in York for an appropriate tomb and they guarantee it, I might just change my mind  ('cos you know, it's entirely up to me ......)
 
I bet the people of Leicester won't be happy with the slab either
 
Liz

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:21
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:48 AM
Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

> Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't
want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.

Sheesh - I was warming to the idea of Leicester, but not if they're not
going to do the thing properly.

I don't personally like the design for the tomb very much - but it needs to
be *a* tomb, either free-standing or recessed into a suitable niche, and not
just a slab. Ten thousand people willw ant to lay flowers and they don't
want them all over the floor!

Wow. Strange development. I wanted to donate for the tomb but I'm glad I'm still holding off on my dollars. Will wait and see! Maire.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I was happy with Leicester but they may have just lost my vote.  If there's enough room in York for an appropriate tomb and they guarantee it, I might just change my mind  ('cos you know, it's entirely up to me ......)
>  
> I bet the people of Leicester won't be happy with the slab either
>  
> Liz
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:21
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:48 AM
> Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't
> want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>
> Sheesh - I was warming to the idea of Leicester, but not if they're not
> going to do the thing properly.
>
> I don't personally like the design for the tomb very much - but it needs to
> be *a* tomb, either free-standing or recessed into a suitable niche, and not
> just a slab. Ten thousand people willw ant to lay flowers and they don't
> want them all over the floor!
>
>
>
>
>
>

  If possession of the remains & burial at Leicester with a 'Slab' does indeed turn out to happen, 
I would again urge consideration be given to a 'Monumental Brass'.

  This could be made to fit into a 'slab' but would be much, much, more than Just a 'Slab'.

  As I said in an earlier 'Rant' this would be the 'Only Example' of a 'King of England' in Brass.

  Those who want the 'Boar' to be in the proposed Monument, Could, I would suggest, have Richard's feet 'Resting on a figure of a 'Boar' as is the case in many monuments of the day. 
[Figures have their feet rest on Dogs, Lions, Grassy Mounds etc.]

  As a personal view I would favour a 'Family Type' Tomb/Brass with his wife Anne in figure form, Included, Lying next to him. If wished a small figure of their son could also be added underneath.
The Brass could include coloured enamels.

 Figure Brasses of the Era are usually shown with 'Hands Clasped In Prayer' however a rarer example might be to emulate having the couple 'Hold Hands' 
[A very attractive example of this is to be found in the Brass of Sir Robert Del Bothe or Booth from Wilmslow, Cheshire] 

Incidentally No Other examples of a 'King' Survive in Brass in England. King Robert the Bruce is the only example in Scotland.

  I would certainly contribute to such a project. Many of his 'Contemporaries' are thus commemorated.

 See:   http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/page78.html#Wydevyl
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
>Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>It's in the Leicester Mercury
>York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
>
>Christine
>Loyaulte me Lie
>
>
>
>
>

If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.


________________________________
: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...> wrote:



 
Wow. Strange development. I wanted to donate for the tomb but I'm glad I'm still holding off on my dollars. Will wait and see! Maire.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Well I was happy with Leicester but they may have just lost my vote.  If there's enough room in York for an appropriate tomb and they guarantee it, I might just change my mind  ('cos you know, it's entirely up to me ......)
>  
> I bet the people of Leicester won't be happy with the slab either
>  
> Liz
>
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:21
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:48 AM
> Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't
> want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>
> Sheesh - I was warming to the idea of Leicester, but not if they're not
> going to do the thing properly.
>
> I don't personally like the design for the tomb very much - but it needs to
> be *a* tomb, either free-standing or recessed into a suitable niche, and not
> just a slab. Ten thousand people willw ant to lay flowers and they don't
> want them all over the floor!
>
>
>
>
>
>

Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren't? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.

Sandra


From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein, 
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine. 

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:38
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>________________________________
>: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> 
>Wow. Strange development. I wanted to donate for the tomb but I'm glad I'm still holding off on my dollars. Will wait and see! Maire.
>
>--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well I was happy with Leicester but they may have just lost my vote.  If there's enough room in York for an appropriate tomb and they guarantee it, I might just change my mind  ('cos you know, it's entirely up to me ......)
>>  
>> I bet the people of Leicester won't be happy with the slab either
>>  
>> Liz
>>
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:21
>> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>>
>>  
>> From: mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:48 AM
>> Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>>
>> > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't
>> want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>>
>> Sheesh - I was warming to the idea of Leicester, but not if they're not
>> going to do the thing properly.
>>
>> I don't personally like the design for the tomb very much - but it needs to
>> be *a* tomb, either free-standing or recessed into a suitable niche, and not
>> just a slab. Ten thousand people willw ant to lay flowers and they don't
>> want them all over the floor!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra


From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

York fought hard in the debate at Westminster this morning - said they wished they had been informed before the exhumation. MP wore white rose, all very gentlemanly.



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 12:52
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren't? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.

Sandra

From: Pamela Furmidge
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.

I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 



________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

The Beauchamp Chapel is a fitting place, and I'm all for nudging Robert Dudley. Anywhere. I'd still prefer Gloucester, though. It IS Richard, he carried its name for so long and he would be more than welcome, I'm sure. Mind, that's me speaking, I don't have a hot line to the bishop!

Sandra


From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:37 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury




Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H



________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:37
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

If you see my other post I do think if you want the tomb/flowers/reverence thing it would fit better than in multicultural Leicester. As indeed would Gloucester.
 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

The Beauchamp Chapel is a fitting place, and I'm all for nudging Robert Dudley. Anywhere. I'd still prefer Gloucester, though. It IS Richard, he carried its name for so long and he would be more than welcome, I'm sure. Mind, that's me speaking, I don't have a hot line to the bishop!

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:37 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

Not under a slab for heaven's sake.
Christine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:37
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I’m biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II’s white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard’s white boar would look very good, methinks.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Arthurian
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
> Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.
>
> What about Gloucester if York wavers?
> [They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No I agree. Not under a slab!



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:04
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Not under a slab for heaven's sake.
Christine

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:37
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 
>
> ________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then Iâ¬"m biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard IIâ¬"s white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richardâ¬"s white boar would look very good, methinks.
>
> Sandra
>
> From: Arthurian
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
> Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.
>
> What about Gloucester if York wavers?
> [They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H
>


I can understand the idea to celebrate Richard in a modern way. (Though obviously a slab wouldn't do that...)

But some of the most important talents and skills we have now are those of being able to recreate the past. Many people dedicate their lives and careers to historical accuracy: some by amassing the minutest factual details hidden in the archives or in the soil, and some others by painstakingly reproducing artforms of the past. Others less focused and talented (like myself) simply love the past, spend their lives in a vague hazy cloud of nostalgia, and seek to recreate it through the imagination. This preoccupation with resurrecting the past - bringing forgotten things back to memory - is one of the things that defines our culture in the present day. The faster things change around us, the more we try to grasp that which is slipping away from us.

So while it would be a lovely idea to commemorate a historical person in a 21st-century way, to invite *him* to be part of *our* world, I can't help but think what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is to take *us* with him to *his* world. To celebrate history not by modernising it but by making it come alive right now, right here.

I'd be quite sad if they let this opportunity go by, because it's such a splendid opportunity for all of us, to experience a moment of history so concretely.

Well, if anyone wants to poke a stick in the right Gloucester government direction, the man I have been in contact is Julian Wain, Chief Executive. I have emailed him, but he thought the matter was settled that York had given way to Leicester, end of story. I fear that if I start up at him again I may come under the unfair heading of a woman of a certain age', and a Ricardian to boot, so it needs an authoritative man to have another go. I think. Not that Mr. Wain has been anything other than polite to me, but men have more clout. It's still a man's world. Any offers to do the prodding? Here's Mr. Wain's answer to me:

From: Julian Wain <julian.wain@...>
Date: 8 March 2013 16:46
Subject: King Richard III
To: sandraheath@...



Dear Madam


Thank you for your enquiry concerning the future internment of King Richard III. I agree with you that this is a truly exciting historical discovery and one that has aroused considerable interest.


However, we have been informed today that York Minster have now publicly given their support for his body to be buried in Leicester


Of course, we are very proud here in Gloucester that we do already have a king buried in our Cathedral.


Yours sincerely,


Julian Wain

Chief Executive


From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:56 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


If you see my other post I do think if you want the tomb/flowers/reverence thing it would fit better than in multicultural Leicester. As indeed would Gloucester.


________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury




The Beauchamp Chapel is a fitting place, and I'm all for nudging Robert Dudley. Anywhere. I'd still prefer Gloucester, though. It IS Richard, he carried its name for so long and he would be more than welcome, I'm sure. Mind, that's me speaking, I don't have a hot line to the bishop!

Sandra

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:37 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge!

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

I agree entirely with Hilary, below.  I'd *like* to see a tomb (I voted for the Society one in the 'Mercury' poll and the only reason I initially delayed was because I was hoping to see any competing designs), but I understand the Church has many considerations to balance.  And has York actually said they'd accommodate either the proposed design?  I don't mean an informal comment from a member of the deanery staff, but an official statement.  Because I can imagine Sentamu viewing the whole thing as something of a distraction from his ministry.  Surely what's most important is that everyone talks and that the process is transparent?

And while a slab would be my least preferred option, it isn't necessarily unfitting, depending on where it's situated.  After all, that's where George VI is.  Not to mention the Unknown Warrior.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:51
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 
I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H

________________________________
From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
To: ">
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:37
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 

________________________________
From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.

Sandra

From: Arthurian
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.

What about Gloucester if York wavers?
[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]

The debate at Westminster this morning was very good Eileen - and York was quite impressive. The decision as to where he should be laid to rest lays with Leicester Uni who can find 'an appropriate place' instead of Leicester Cathedral. And from now it was made clear their decision would be watched. No bad thing at all, given that it came on the same day as this and tomorrow Leicester are releasing the design brief?  



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenâ¬"t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree Eileen, and have no thoughts on the where, but the how.....It should be with the pomp and ceremony as befits a King of England, however short lived.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 9:43 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenýýýt? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Write to
 Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
 
Or
 
Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
 
Or both - I shall!
 
 
 
this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
 
 Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.

The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.

Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."

The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenâ¬"t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.

Can't we be more grown-up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 
Write to
 Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
 
Or
 
Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
 
Or both - I shall!
 
 
 
this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
 
 Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.

The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.

Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."

The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenâ¬"t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has
> suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to
> his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could
> find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge!

I like the sound of that, so long as the security is good.

This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen. 

 
Pamela Garrett

That was said at the Parl debate - and that she'd passed it to the police 



________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 16:06
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.

Can't we be more grown-up?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html

Jonathan

________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: ">
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 
Write to
 Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
 
Or
 
Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
 
Or both - I shall!
 
 
 
this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
 
 Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.

The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.

Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."

The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenâ¬"t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
>
> Sandra
>
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> So while it would be a lovely idea to commemorate a historical person in a
> 21st-century way, to invite *him* to be part of *our* world, I can't help
> but think what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is to take *us* with
> him to *his* world. To celebrate history not by modernising it but by
> making it come alive right now, right here.

I wish they would use the architect who rebuilt the chapel at Windsor after
the fire. It was a wonderful thing, because it was identifiably Gothic, and
yet also identifiably 20th C Gothic rather than Victorian Gothic or
Mediaeval Gothic, so it was a perfect living continuation of an ancient
technique rather than a pastiche of it.

Great idea Claire. I suppose, we mere members of the Society have zero chance of getting any traction in the matter of Richard III's reinterment. So, the question is, who or what body can get the attention of who - Parliament, The Crown, The "Church", City Father's/Mother's (are there any lady mayors) to make the proper and fitting decisions? I would think everyone would want this to be a dignified and elegant reinterment. This was an English King.......

On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:20 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: pansydobersby
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

> So while it would be a lovely idea to commemorate a historical person in a
> 21st-century way, to invite *him* to be part of *our* world, I can't help
> but think what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is to take *us* with
> him to *his* world. To celebrate history not by modernising it but by
> making it come alive right now, right here.

I wish they would use the architect who rebuilt the chapel at Windsor after
the fire. It was a wonderful thing, because it was identifiably Gothic, and
yet also identifiably 20th C Gothic rather than Victorian Gothic or
Mediaeval Gothic, so it was a perfect living continuation of an ancient
technique rather than a pastiche of it.

Jonathan what do you mean 'we'...? I havent sent any hate mail neither have I taken part in the many posts about *where* Richard should be laid to rest other than a couple of posts to say that clearly York does not want or seems interested in having the remains of Richard laid to rest in their Cathedral so let Leicester have him. I do not really care that much as long as it is somewhere suitable where Ricardians will be able to go and pay their respects, lay a rose and perhaps be able to linger for a while. I am upset and entitled to be upset after being led to think that Richard would be re-buried in Leicester and within the tomb that is pictured on the society website and which as we have been asked to contribute towards seems as if it was settled. Apparentlu it is not and I feel as if I and many others have been led up the garden path. And yes I am annoyed and very disappointed...Eileen

-
> Can't we be more grown-up?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
> Write to
>  Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
>  
> Or
>  
> Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
>  
> Or both - I shall!
>  
>  
>  
> this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
>  
>  Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
>
> The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
>
> Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
>
> The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> >
> > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamella, you completely echo my feelings!! How can they?!! I voted even though they are going to ignore any sort of poll......

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:

> This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen.
>
>
> Pamela Garrett
>
>
>
>

Welcome Pamela...As you can see the issue, which is now looking like a problem, of where Richard can find a final and befitting resting place is descending into farce...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen. 
>
>  
> Pamela Garrett
>
>
>

Ishita..as an Englishwoman it makes me feel ashamed...Eileen

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Pamella, you completely echo my feelings!! How can they?!! I voted even though they are going to ignore any sort of poll......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> > This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen.
> >
> >
> > Pamela Garrett
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.

As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.

Jonathan

Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android

He didn't get the honor due a king when he was unceremoniously dumped in a hastily dug grave. If we miss this chance to give him a tomb and burial befit a king, can we forgive ourselves? Is there nothing we can do?

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 10:44 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've just read the Leicester Mercury article and, at the risk of being scalped, I can see the Cathedral's point of view. Churches are no longer mausoleums and I don't think they'll want banks of flowers in the midst of their community work. I think one commentator made a great suggestion when he said we should use the ingenuity of the twentieth century to celebrate the man, such as something beautiful in glass, something which lifts the spirits. If you've ever looked at John Piper's marvellous Baptistry Window in Coventry Cathedral you'll see what I mean. I'm not decrying our man, I think we should do the best we can by him using all the talent we now have. I think he would have liked that. H
> >
>
> I can understand the idea to celebrate Richard in a modern way. (Though obviously a slab wouldn't do that...)
>
> But some of the most important talents and skills we have now are those of being able to recreate the past. Many people dedicate their lives and careers to historical accuracy: some by amassing the minutest factual details hidden in the archives or in the soil, and some others by painstakingly reproducing artforms of the past. Others less focused and talented (like myself) simply love the past, spend their lives in a vague hazy cloud of nostalgia, and seek to recreate it through the imagination. This preoccupation with resurrecting the past - bringing forgotten things back to memory - is one of the things that defines our culture in the present day. The faster things change around us, the more we try to grasp that which is slipping away from us.
>
> So while it would be a lovely idea to commemorate a historical person in a 21st-century way, to invite *him* to be part of *our* world, I can't help but think what a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity this is to take *us* with him to *his* world. To celebrate history not by modernising it but by making it come alive right now, right here.
>
> I'd be quite sad if they let this opportunity go by, because it's such a splendid opportunity for all of us, to experience a moment of history so concretely.
>
>

Why her?

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:

> According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
>
> Can't we be more grown-up?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>
> Write to
> Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
>
> Or
>
> Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
>
> Or both - I shall!
>
>
>
> this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
>
> Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
>
> The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
>
> Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
>
> The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenâ¬"t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> >
> > Sandra
> >
> >
> > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

Eileen, you have nothing to feel ashamed about! You have been steadfast and fighting for a cause. I cannot believe the people behind the scenes who are treating his body as a political card.... I am so sad.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2013, at 2:00 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Ishita..as an Englishwoman it makes me feel ashamed...Eileen
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Pamella, you completely echo my feelings!! How can they?!! I voted even though they are going to ignore any sort of poll......
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
> >
> > > This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Pamela Garrett
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

I think perhaps the Society didn't do the best job in making it clear to
people that the tomb design they proposed was just that--a proposal. And probably a lot of people, including Society members, saw the renderings and made an assumption it would all come to pass, because we wanted it
so. I always understood that the Cathedral authorities might choose
another design, but I always assumed that, in the end, even if they
considered a slab, they would recognize public sentiment and the
importance of Richard's reburial and would, at the very least, come
around to choosing a tomb and not a floor slab. And if, in fact, the strategy was to present a fait accompli, that is, a tomb design ready to be be made and completely paid for, it's not an altogether bad one. So we've done all the bloody work for them and they still won't take it! In his design, David Johnson took into account that the cathedral is not that big and the footprint of the tomb is the same as the floor slab now in place. As to collecting the money before the fact, they had 65% of the funds already in place before they even launched the appeal--from what source, I don't know--and I'm sure they felt, and I agree, that being able to have it fully paid for and ready to go would help prod the powers that be in our direction. I have already made a donation for the tomb and I have no worries about the money being returned if, in the end, it comes to that, but I don't want my money back. I want a proper resting place for Richard.

It seems that the Society did have encouragement/approval of previous Dean and it's only this new one (and only Acting at that) is reneging on his predecessors 'agreement'  Doncha just hate a muscle-flexing little jobsworth?.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

It is appalling that she has received some hate mail - but this is a tiny minority of the response concerning Richard-to-York, which has been overwhelming well-mannered in trying to get the decision re-assessed and hopefully reversed. The unpleasantness may be related to the fact that Dean Faull was Dean of Leicester until last December when she became Dean of York. She was Dean of Leicester during the three year period in which the Society exec seem to have been in talks with the cathedral, agreeing with the Chapter on it as the location for the reinterment (should Richard ever be found) some years before the dig happened. This would seem to indicate that York never had a chance, even before the licence was applied for, even years before anyone knew a dig was being planned.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Why her?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> >
> > Can't we be more grown-up?
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> >
> > Write to
> > Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
> >
> > Or
> >
> > Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
> >
> > Or both - I shall!
> >
> >
> >
> > this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
> >
> > Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> > At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
> >
> > The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
> >
> > Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
> >
> > The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> > So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

> I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
Richard's memorial.


Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?


> I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
not like the idea of a slab.


I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?

Jonathan




________________________________



 
Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

Just read messages further up.  65% raised before the public launch is fine (I don't work in major gifts, but I think 75% is best practice) - but the launch should really have been held off at least until it was clear that the design fitted the spec otherwise, yes, it can get messy and embarrassing.  As for the new Dean having different views, again, if you go public too soon with plans, you limit your room for manoeuvre.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 20:10
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

> I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
Richard's memorial.

Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?

> I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
not like the idea of a slab.

I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?

Jonathan

________________________________



 
Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

________________________________
From: RONALD COOKSLEY <greyfox.cooksley@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 19:27
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
It seems that the Society did have encouragement/approval of previous Dean and it's only this new one (and only Acting at that) is reneging on his predecessors 'agreement'  Doncha just hate a muscle-flexing little jobsworth?.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

 
It seems that the Society did have encouragement/approval of previous Dean and it's only this new one (and only Acting at that) is reneging on his predecessors 'agreement'  Doncha just hate a muscle-flexing little jobsworth?.

________________________________
From: EileenB <mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...

I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?

Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>
> As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>
>
>
>
>

Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> Richard's memorial.
>
>
> Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
>
>
> > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> not like the idea of a slab.
>
>
> I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>  
> Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
>
> I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
>
> Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> >
> > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > Richard's memorial.
> >
> >
> > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> >
> >
> > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > not like the idea of a slab.
> >
> >
> > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> >
> > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> >
> > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > >
> > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> Just read messages further up. 65% raised before the public launch is
> fine (I don't work in major gifts, but I think 75% is best practice) - but
> the launch should really have been held off at least until it was clear
> that the design fitted the spec otherwise, yes, it can get messy and
> embarrassing. As for the new Dean having different views, again, if you
> go public too soon with plans, you limit your room for manoeuvre.

Has there ever been any opportunity for private people to suggest designs?
I used to do a lot of heraldic art as a hobby and I have an idea for a tomb
which would be partially recessed into an alcove, so that it only protruded
about a foot into the walk-space, and with the protruding corners taken off
at a diagonal so people don't bash their shins on it if space is so limited,
with an ornamental shelf running round the inside of the recess above the
tomb for people to leave candles and vases of flowers in a tidy way.

Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > Richard's memorial.
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > >
> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > >
> > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Jonathan Evans wrote:
>
> According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
>
> Can't we be more grown-up?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
>
> Jonathan

Carol responds:

I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.

According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "

The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.

"Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."

Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.

Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.

Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.

No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!

Carol

Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > >
> > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Does the Richard the Third Society have an inferiority complex? They seem to always assume the burden of stupid, violent and silly (the last one is me!) messages sent out in a bottle.

I can't believe for a moment that Society members and Ricardians are sending out hate mail - unless there are some renegade ex-Yahoo lurkers, lol! It's probably just individual people who have been ginned up by the media. Maire.

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> >
> > Can't we be more grown-up?
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
>
> According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
>
> The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
>
> "Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
>
> Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
>
> Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
>
> Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
>
> No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
>
> Carol
>

Eileen, So do I......

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

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:43 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
>
> --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > Richard's memorial.
> >
> >
> > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> >
> >
> > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > not like the idea of a slab.
> >
> >
> > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue). In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> >
> > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> >
> > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > >
> > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I would like to think so.....Loyalty was one of the things that he prized above all else..Eileen

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Loyality seems to bind you, Eileen. Richard is smiling.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to think so.....Loyalty was one of the things that he prized above all else..Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:38 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the
> design for his tomb.

Happy, probably not. But flattered, after 500+ years? Hell, yes. Saints
aside, there's not many historical figures who still inspire this sort of
intensity.

I have just received a mailing from the Society..to those who have not received it this is what it says......

"At 12 noon on 13th March Leicester Cathedral will publish its design brief for the reinternment of King Richard to their selected architects..

Although the chairman was given a draft version of the brief we have not seen the final brief but we believe it will suggest a ledger stone or slab as a memorial rather than a table tomb which the Society have proposed..The Leicester Mercury Newspaper are running a poll to determine the public's preference..If you would like to vote we ask that you do so before Tuesday 19th March..

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe"

Eileen

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to think so.....Loyalty was one of the things that he prized above all else..Eileen
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

You said what I thought. Richard should be blushing with all the attention he's getting. Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 9:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> > Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the
> > design for his tomb.
>
> Happy, probably not. But flattered, after 500+ years? Hell, yes. Saints
> aside, there's not many historical figures who still inspire this sort of
> intensity.
>

Personally I'm not that bothered that "York never had a chance" becasue I've never had any problem with Leicester being his burial site but what "does" bother me is that the previous Dean seems to have more or less agreed that if Richard was found, he would have a tomb, etc, etc and now her acting successor (not even her "real" successor) won't honour that.  It stinks - frankly.
 
 


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 19:58
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
It is appalling that she has received some hate mail - but this is a tiny minority of the response concerning Richard-to-York, which has been overwhelming well-mannered in trying to get the decision re-assessed and hopefully reversed. The unpleasantness may be related to the fact that Dean Faull was Dean of Leicester until last December when she became Dean of York. She was Dean of Leicester during the three year period in which the Society exec seem to have been in talks with the cathedral, agreeing with the Chapter on it as the location for the reinterment (should Richard ever be found) some years before the dig happened. This would seem to indicate that York never had a chance, even before the licence was applied for, even years before anyone knew a dig was being planned.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Why her?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> >
> > Can't we be more grown-up?
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: "@[email protected]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> >
> > Write to
> > Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
> >
> > Or
> >
> > Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
> >
> > Or both - I shall!
> >
> >
> >
> > this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
> >
> > Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> > At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
> >
> > The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
> >
> > Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
> >
> > The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
> >
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> > So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest arenââ¬â¢t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> > >
> > > Sandra
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Maire,
 
there are a lot of people who are not members of the Society who are very vehement in their desire for Richard to be buried in York so maybe one or two of them got a bit carried away (it is of course reprehensible).
 
As for the "slab" what we must all do is write, very politely but emphastically, showing our passion.


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:54
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
Does the Richard the Third Society have an inferiority complex? They seem to always assume the burden of stupid, violent and silly (the last one is me!) messages sent out in a bottle.

I can't believe for a moment that Society members and Ricardians are sending out hate mail - unless there are some renegade ex-Yahoo lurkers, lol! It's probably just individual people who have been ginned up by the media. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Jonathan Evans wrote:
> >
> > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> >
> > Can't we be more grown-up?
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> >
> > Jonathan
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
>
> According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
>
> The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
>
> "Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
>
> Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
>
> Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
>
> Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
>
> No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
>
> Carol
>

Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > >
> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > >
> > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

I am not happy either.......BUT, let's look at the past two months:
1. King Richard III's remains have been found and proved to be his.
2. We have a model of how he might have looked (yes, we all have our theories).
3. The whole world knows about R3, and the entire matter of his life, death and actions as king, are being scrutinized and checked.
4. People are vying for where to place his remains, how, etc. but with an eye toward regal dignity.
5. Books are being written, rewritten and republished, which will give us a much better idea of his life and reign from (we hope) a scholarly search of documents, etc.
6. Our man is in adverts, and is "hip" again.
So, let us rejoice in what has happened. Yes, I am a newbie, and not British, so have little sway in the group. And for those of you have been loyal members for almost thirty years, we salute you. We are together in most things.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 4:47 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
>
> Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).ý In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ý
> > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > >
> > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Wow, tomb is running at 89%!

On Mar 12, 2013, at 5:14 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



I have just received a mailing from the Society..to those who have not received it this is what it says......

"At 12 noon on 13th March Leicester Cathedral will publish its design brief for the reinternment of King Richard to their selected architects..

Although the chairman was given a draft version of the brief we have not seen the final brief but we believe it will suggest a ledger stone or slab as a memorial rather than a table tomb which the Society have proposed..The Leicester Mercury Newspaper are running a poll to determine the public's preference..If you would like to vote we ask that you do so before Tuesday 19th March..

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe"

Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I would like to think so.....Loyalty was one of the things that he prized above all else..Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).ý In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ý
> > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

There is no indication who the "hate=mail" came from. It could have been any individual in the country, and not one connected with either Ricardian groups or Societies. And whilst unpleasant in the extreme, it doesn't help that the media are choosing to focus on this, when the issue under discussion in the debate was the validity of the licence and also Richard's own likely preference for York, and also the claims of collateral descendants, and that the process should be re-visited by representatives of the two major positions in an open and more informed way.

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Does the Richard the Third Society have an inferiority complex? They seem to always assume the burden of stupid, violent and silly (the last one is me!) messages sent out in a bottle.
>
> I can't believe for a moment that Society members and Ricardians are sending out hate mail - unless there are some renegade ex-Yahoo lurkers, lol! It's probably just individual people who have been ginned up by the media. Maire.
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
> >
> > According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
> >
> > The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
> >
> > "Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
> >
> > Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
> >
> > Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
> >
> > Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
> >
> > No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>

I think no=one should have agreed on anything before the king's remains were found. In fact they shouldn't have agreed on anything before they were confirmed as Richard. The licence, as Hugh Bayley pointed out, is a general one issued for any kind of archaeological dig, not expected to find a named individual. That it did, is, as he pointed out, a "game-changer". It is now too important for a Uni to have sole decision over where a king's remains should lie.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I'm not that bothered that "York never had a chance" becasue I've never had any problem with Leicester being his burial site but what "does" bother me is that the previous Dean seems to have more or less agreed that if Richard was found, he would have a tomb, etc, etc and now her acting successor (not even her "real" successor) won't honour that.  It stinks - frankly.
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 19:58
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> It is appalling that she has received some hate mail - but this is a tiny minority of the response concerning Richard-to-York, which has been overwhelming well-mannered in trying to get the decision re-assessed and hopefully reversed. The unpleasantness may be related to the fact that Dean Faull was Dean of Leicester until last December when she became Dean of York. She was Dean of Leicester during the three year period in which the Society exec seem to have been in talks with the cathedral, agreeing with the Chapter on it as the location for the reinterment (should Richard ever be found) some years before the dig happened. This would seem to indicate that York never had a chance, even before the licence was applied for, even years before anyone knew a dig was being planned.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Why her?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Write to
> > > Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
> > >
> > > Or
> > >
> > > Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
> > >
> > > Or both - I shall!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
> > >
> > > Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> > > At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
> > >
> > > The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
> > >
> > > Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
> > >
> > > The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

As an American, I am reluctant to get involved in the York vs Leicester debate. All I wanted was for him to be buried with dignity. When the tomb was shown on the RIII site, I was really excited - I thought it was beautiful. So, it's a comedown to now find out he's going to be buried under a slab in the floor. Perhaps it will be beautiful, too. But, I agree: people (non-Brits) need to carry on a campaign to get him the best possible resting place! Take care, Liz. Maire.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Maire,
>  
> there are a lot of people who are not members of the Society who are very vehement in their desire for Richard to be buried in York so maybe one or two of them got a bit carried away (it is of course reprehensible).
>  
> As for the "slab" what we must all do is write, very politely but emphastically, showing our passion.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:54
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> Does the Richard the Third Society have an inferiority complex? They seem to always assume the burden of stupid, violent and silly (the last one is me!) messages sent out in a bottle.
>
> I can't believe for a moment that Society members and Ricardians are sending out hate mail - unless there are some renegade ex-Yahoo lurkers, lol! It's probably just individual people who have been ginned up by the media. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
> >
> > According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
> >
> > The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
> >
> > "Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
> >
> > Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
> >
> > Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
> >
> > Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
> >
> > No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> It is now too important for a Uni to have sole decision over where a
> king's remains should lie.

Absolutely - this is a state-level decision which ought to be made by the
Royal Family, by Parliament or by the senior ranks of the Church of England.

Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  
> > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > >
> > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Eileen, Sending a group hug your way.
We are all in this together.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue). In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

I shall writing to all and sundry in the politest form possible - starting tomorrow (work must take a backseat again ....... )


________________________________
From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 22:54
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 
As an American, I am reluctant to get involved in the York vs Leicester debate. All I wanted was for him to be buried with dignity. When the tomb was shown on the RIII site, I was really excited - I thought it was beautiful. So, it's a comedown to now find out he's going to be buried under a slab in the floor. Perhaps it will be beautiful, too. But, I agree: people (non-Brits) need to carry on a campaign to get him the best possible resting place! Take care, Liz. Maire.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Maire,
>  
> there are a lot of people who are not members of the Society who are very vehement in their desire for Richard to be buried in York so maybe one or two of them got a bit carried away (it is of course reprehensible).
>  
> As for the "slab" what we must all do is write, very politely but emphastically, showing our passion.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:54
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> Does the Richard the Third Society have an inferiority complex? They seem to always assume the burden of stupid, violent and silly (the last one is me!) messages sent out in a bottle.
>
> I can't believe for a moment that Society members and Ricardians are sending out hate mail - unless there are some renegade ex-Yahoo lurkers, lol! It's probably just individual people who have been ginned up by the media. Maire.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Evans wrote:
> > >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
> >
> > According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
> >
> > The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
> >
> > "Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
> >
> > Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
> >
> > Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
> >
> > Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
> >
> > No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Liz I agree. I too have no axe to grind about that....its becoming apparent that *where*Richard is buried is the least of our worries. I am prepared to travel anywhere to pay my respects...Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I'm not that bothered that "York never had a chance" becasue I've never had any problem with Leicester being his burial site but what "does" bother me is that the previous Dean seems to have more or less agreed that if Richard was found, he would have a tomb, etc, etc and now her acting successor (not even her "real" successor) won't honour that.  It stinks - frankly.
>  
>  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 19:58
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
> It is appalling that she has received some hate mail - but this is a tiny minority of the response concerning Richard-to-York, which has been overwhelming well-mannered in trying to get the decision re-assessed and hopefully reversed. The unpleasantness may be related to the fact that Dean Faull was Dean of Leicester until last December when she became Dean of York. She was Dean of Leicester during the three year period in which the Society exec seem to have been in talks with the cathedral, agreeing with the Chapter on it as the location for the reinterment (should Richard ever be found) some years before the dig happened. This would seem to indicate that York never had a chance, even before the licence was applied for, even years before anyone knew a dig was being planned.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Why her?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Write to
> > > Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
> > >
> > > Or
> > >
> > > Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
> > >
> > > Or both - I shall!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
> > >
> > > Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> > > At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
> > >
> > > The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
> > >
> > > Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
> > >
> > > The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Ishita...A girl can never have too many hugs....bring them on :0)

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Eileen, Sending a group hug your way.
> We are all in this together.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue). In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Just voted 89% want a tomb.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I have just received a mailing from the Society..to those who have not received it this is what it says......
>
> "At 12 noon on 13th March Leicester Cathedral will publish its design brief for the reinternment of King Richard to their selected architects..
>
> Although the chairman was given a draft version of the brief we have not seen the final brief but we believe it will suggest a ledger stone or slab as a memorial rather than a table tomb which the Society have proposed..The Leicester Mercury Newspaper are running a poll to determine the public's preference..If you would like to vote we ask that you do so before Tuesday 19th March..
>
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe"
>
> Eileen
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I would like to think so.....Loyalty was one of the things that he prized above all else..Eileen
> >
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > No, I can hear the passion in your "voice." I love it. Passion comes in many forms - sometimes love and sometimes anger - maybe even in depression. Richard would be proud of your loyalty. Maire.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Maire...I'm not akshully feeling the passion at the moment...Im feeling more the depression...however...I will rally though...Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen: I love your passion. You go, girl!
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
>

YES. I have already started...

Let us pick up Anne Warwick's baton and send out an avalanche of respectful but determined letters to all and sundry! The Countess was, after all, quite alone in pleading her cause; imagine what she might have accomplished, had she had thousands of allies!

Where can we email?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:29 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
> >
>
> YES. I have already started...
>
> Let us pick up Anne Warwick's baton and send out an avalanche of respectful but determined letters to all and sundry! The Countess was, after all, quite alone in pleading her cause; imagine what she might have accomplished, had she had thousands of allies!
>
>

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Where can we email?
>


No idea, Ishita. I'm sending mine by post, but I'm not yet even sure where or to whom! I'm sure I'll think of something as soon as I've finished channelling Winston Churchill for my persuasive arguments... though I think I might be getting Marie Corelli on the line, as my prose seems a tad purple in places. Oh, well.

But I'm thinking everyone from the Dean of Leicester to the Prince of Wales, basically. Damn it, I'll throw in the EU department of cultural heritage, for good measure. And Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire (just because I've always wanted to write a fan letter to Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire; I doubt she actually has anything to say about Richard). And if all else fails, I'll write to Margaret of Burgundy...

What is there to lose, except ink and stamps? (And possibly sanity, but that's long gone anyway!)

Oh, I had the complete opposite impression. I read everything I could get my browser on about the design for the tomb, and it all said "proposal" all over the place; I don't think they could have been too much more consistent in managing any potential expectation that it was a lock. I've been waiting for the other designs, in fact, ready to sneer and point and laugh at their inadequacies compared to the design from the RIII Society. (Loyaulte lie-ing me, so to say.)

This all reminds me of the statement made by another set of church fathers at the time of the death of Johann Sebastian Bach, nearly universally regarded as an inconsolable loss to the world of music. The church fathers had battled with Bach his entire career, instead of doing what any reasonable human would have in the presence of genius and letting him noodle out "Chopsticks" in the middle of Processional if he'd a mind to. They found themselves taken aback by the grief attending the passage of their stubborn, cantankerous musical paragon. Finally, they were prevailed upon to issue their own remarks on the occasion of Bach's death, and the best they could come up with was this: "Well, no doubt Herr Bach was a gifted composer, but what we really wanted was a church organist."

I can well imagine that there's an Anglican bishop on the phone right now to some vicar, saying in that mild yet authoritative way of senior clergy, "Now, I'm trying to refrain from using the expression 'You lot are a pack of throbbing morons,' but it's not going at all well. not well at all."

--- In , Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> I think perhaps the Society didn't do the best job in making it clear to
> people that the tomb design they proposed was just that--a proposal. And probably a lot of people, including Society members, saw the renderings and made an assumption it would all come to pass, because we wanted it
> so. I always understood that the Cathedral authorities might choose
> another design, but I always assumed that, in the end, even if they
> considered a slab, they would recognize public sentiment and the
> importance of Richard's reburial and would, at the very least, come
> around to choosing a tomb and not a floor slab. And if, in fact, the strategy was to present a fait accompli, that is, a tomb design ready to be be made and completely paid for, it's not an altogether bad one. So we've done all the bloody work for them and they still won't take it! In his design, David Johnson took into account that the cathedral is not that big and the footprint of the tomb is the same as the floor slab now in place. As to collecting the money before the fact, they had 65% of the funds already in place before they even launched the appeal--from what source, I don't know--and I'm sure they felt, and I agree, that being able to have it fully paid for and ready to go would help prod the powers that be in our direction. I have already made a donation for the tomb and I have no worries about the money being returned if, in the end, it comes to that, but I don't want my money back. I want a proper resting place for Richard.

Well... but it's also worth keeping in mind that whole tradition in English churches that any remains disinterred from consecrated ground should be re-interred in the nearest consecrated ground not subject to disturbance via backhoe. (I thought that was the law, but it's more a tradition that has *some* application to the law because you'd have to have the church authorities involved in any reinterment.) So it might have been the RIII Society and ULeic saying, "Well, OK, in the extremely unlikely event that we should put together a dig and actually uncover the remains of Richard III, would you guys be cool with a reinterment in the cathedral?"

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> It is appalling that she has received some hate mail - but this is a tiny minority of the response concerning Richard-to-York, which has been overwhelming well-mannered in trying to get the decision re-assessed and hopefully reversed. The unpleasantness may be related to the fact that Dean Faull was Dean of Leicester until last December when she became Dean of York. She was Dean of Leicester during the three year period in which the Society exec seem to have been in talks with the cathedral, agreeing with the Chapter on it as the location for the reinterment (should Richard ever be found) some years before the dig happened. This would seem to indicate that York never had a chance, even before the licence was applied for, even years before anyone knew a dig was being planned.
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Why her?
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > www.ishitabandyo.com
> > www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> > www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> >
> > > According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
> > >
> > > Can't we be more grown-up?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > To: "@@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Write to
> > > Barry Naylor, Acting Dean and Urban Canon
> > >
> > > Or
> > >
> > > Revd Mandy Ford, Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee
> > >
> > > Or both - I shall!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > this is on their website today so tomorrow we shall see exactly what is in the design brief
> > >
> > > Leicester Cathedral Design Briefing for Reinterment of Richard III
> > > At 12.00 noon on Wednesday 13 March Leicester Cathedral will publish the Design Brief that will be given to the architects who have been selected to provide a scheme to reinter King Richard III in an appropriate way. The date follows a meeting on 12 March at which the Cathedral Chapter will finalise the details of the brief including the recommendations of the Fabric Advisory Committee which met recently.
> > >
> > > The document will describe the place of the Cathedral in Leicester's history and culture. It will outline some of the issues faced by the challenge of honouring a king within a space used by many people and for a variety of services, and seek a solution to ensuring visitors will be able to see the resting place while allowing prayer and worship to continue.
> > >
> > > Canon Barry Naylor, Acting Dean of the Cathedral, is delighted we can begin the process: "It's been both a delight and a challenge to be asked to receive a king into the Cathedral. Since the announcement that he had been found thousands of people have come to see the existing memorial stone and to spend time in the Cathedral, and we know this will continue once he is reinterred. It is therefore vitally important that we take note of all aspects of Cathedral life in planning where and how Richard will be reinterred."
> > >
> > > The Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of the Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee: "This will be the first step in a design and consultation process which leads to receive planning approval from the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. We hope to complete
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 14:43
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >
> > > So why didnt Leicester Cathedral make this known at the beginning?..Its absolutely unacceptable....What buffoons are making these decisions...This...the burial of an annointed king, is a one off and due to the strength of feeling they need to get their fingers out and get this sorted...Im really really concerned that this will indeed be the situation because the authorities making choices do not seem up to it...Shame on them..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why should this anointed King of England be treated so shabbily when the rest aren’t? Boo to Leicester. And boo to York for surrendering him so easily. Shame on them all. He should lie in a cathedral that will honour and respect him. Clearly not the aforementioned Leicester or York.
> > > >
> > > > Sandra
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Pamela Furmidge
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:38 PM
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > If you look at the page with the article about the tomb, there is a poll - currently only 7% want a slab - everyone else wants a tomb.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Another Texas-sized hug for our valiant warrior! You just chill tonight and we'll take care that your war-horse has a little nosh on some oats while we're brushing her coat and oiling her hooves for the combat to come.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Ishita...A girl can never have too many hugs....bring them on :0)
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Eileen, Sending a group hug your way.
> > We are all in this together.
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > > Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue). In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Should anyone wish to engage in a bit of guerilla action:

1.) Print this message.
2.) Clip it at the dotted lines.
3.) Fold it up.
4.) Slip it into the collection plate at Leicester Cathedral on Sunday.

=======================================

NOT ONE FARTHING FOR A PACK OF TUDOR-LOVERS!

=======================================

Hahahahaha! Hiccups!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 12, 2013, at 9:51 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> Should anyone wish to engage in a bit of guerilla action:
>
> 1.) Print this message.
> 2.) Clip it at the dotted lines.
> 3.) Fold it up.
> 4.) Slip it into the collection plate at Leicester Cathedral on Sunday.
>
> =======================================
>
> NOT ONE FARTHING FOR A PACK OF TUDOR-LOVERS!
>
> =======================================
>
>

All my letters that I will be sending, personally, are concerning the location: I think the process - by which Leicester was agreed upon by essentially private parties for some years before the actual dig - was unfit for purpose and wholly inappropriate for selecting the last resting place of a King of England, and also it doesn't appear to follow the guidelines set out in the Ministry of Justice/English Heritage/Church of England's "Best Practice" document which deals with reinterments after exhumation. From that document, the opinions of living descendants of the family line are important; also the likely wishes of the deceased, so far as they can be inferred (I think we can definitely infer "not Leicester"); also that decisions be taken in the public interest, and in a publicly accountable way. And that if there is disagreement, the matter should be brought before an independent arbitration group. I would question whether any of that was observed.

Also, we make a big deal of repatriating soldiers in this country. It's not reasonable to compare a single long-lost king with the great numbers in the World Wars who were buried near to where they fell. This is a single individual, a nation's monarch, so he should be "brought home", and he did call going to York a "home-coming" in his letters. henry I was brought from France to the place he wished to be buried. Richard himself re-interred his father and brother from their original burial location - to a place "appropriate to them", Fotheringhay.

Also upon finding the lost remains of a missing person - imagine any well-known case from the news over the last decades - we do not insist that they are buried locally to where they fell, or where they were hidden, but they are removed from that location and all its negative associations, and family members chose a more appropriate place.

How can we accord these dignities to people in our time but not to the remains of a king, just because the passage of time is longer? Richard did not call Leicester home; MoJ guidleines do not suggest that "the remains have to be buried locally", despite what the Under-Secretary suggested in his closing statement yesterday. The licence, even as it stands (and it is, to my mind, no longer applicable) allows the Uni to re-inter elsewhere - "in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place".

My letters would go to Leicester Univeristy Registrar (Mr Dave Hall) to encourage the licence-holders to consider York for all of the above reasons; to both of the York MP's (Hugh Bayley and Julian Sturdy) to support them in whatever "talks" are agreed upon; to the Society exec to urge them to support York; to York Minster Chapter, to encourage them to welcome the remains, should a different location be sought; to the Under-Secretary for Justice, Jeremy Wright, to remind him of the guidelines in his own dept-sponsored document. Also - to all of the above - mentioning the current concern that the "space" allowed for a suitable tomb etc in Leicester Cathedral seems to be an issue - which would raise concern about dignity and a fitting national monument to a king of England. A tomb in the vast grandeur and *space* of York Minster would be more accessible, more dignified, more fitting and more appropriate to Richard's well-known and strong connections with that city.

The emails for all of these people/bodies can be easily found.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Where can we email?
> >
>
>
> No idea, Ishita. I'm sending mine by post, but I'm not yet even sure where or to whom! I'm sure I'll think of something as soon as I've finished channelling Winston Churchill for my persuasive arguments... though I think I might be getting Marie Corelli on the line, as my prose seems a tad purple in places. Oh, well.
>
> But I'm thinking everyone from the Dean of Leicester to the Prince of Wales, basically. Damn it, I'll throw in the EU department of cultural heritage, for good measure. And Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire (just because I've always wanted to write a fan letter to Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire; I doubt she actually has anything to say about Richard). And if all else fails, I'll write to Margaret of Burgundy...
>
> What is there to lose, except ink and stamps? (And possibly sanity, but that's long gone anyway!)
>

Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
Hi everyone!
Nat- Yorkshire.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>  
>
>
>
> Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> Come on society committee.
> God Bless Richard.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Christine,
> >  
> > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >  
> >
> > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> >
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Great summary, colyngbourne. Thank you.

>
> Also, we make a big deal of repatriating soldiers in this country. It's not reasonable to compare a single long-lost king with the great numbers in the World Wars who were buried near to where they fell. This is a single individual, a nation's monarch, so he should be "brought home", and he did call going to York a "home-coming" in his letters. henry I was brought from France to the place he wished to be buried. Richard himself re-interred his father and brother from their original burial location - to a place "appropriate to them", Fotheringhay.
>

I also hope that people making the case for York will stick to the known facts about his affection for and strong connections to Yorkshire and the North in general. (And to York Minster itself: the lavish plans for the chantry chapel.) Too many comments online are stating that Richard had stated a wish to be buried there; indeed, the other day I even came across someone saying that he had left an extant will to that effect!

Such non-factual points make the argument too easy to refute.

(And have an unfortunate tendency to make the pendulum swing the other way: 'Oh, so he didn't actually write down he intended to be buried in York Minster? He might even have preferred Westminster Abbey?! Well, then, we know absolutely nothing! In that case weighing the options and carefully choosing the most appropriate venue for his reburial surely doesn't matter at all!')

I agree with everyting you say.
 
There were one or two telling things at the debate yesterday.
 
1. Richard Buckley had admitted to Hugh Bayley that he had believed the dig had no chance of success - ie therefore burial was not a particular issue but they named the King just in case
2. York and other universities had not been told - therefore got no chance to add their expertise
3. The Uni had been silent on the fact that there were 3 options for burial - museum, nearest church or 'an appropriate place'. It took the Minister to sniff that one out.
4. Hugh Bayley pointed out that conditions of such licences could be waived and raised the incident of the Jews in York
5. Leicester Cathedral were very quiet, given that they had a rep there
6. I think as a politician the Minister was aware this was a now matter of national debate and could reflect on him down the line which was why he said his department 'would be keeping an eye on it'. I therefore think it would be good to copy him in on your letters. The R3 Soc were praised many times during the proceedings.
 
Hope this helps.  H  


________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 7:52
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

All my letters that I will be sending, personally, are concerning the location: I think the process - by which Leicester was agreed upon by essentially private parties for some years before the actual dig - was unfit for purpose and wholly inappropriate for selecting the last resting place of a King of England, and also it doesn't appear to follow the guidelines set out in the Ministry of Justice/English Heritage/Church of England's "Best Practice" document which deals with reinterments after exhumation. From that document, the opinions of living descendants of the family line are important; also the likely wishes of the deceased, so far as they can be inferred (I think we can definitely infer "not Leicester"); also that decisions be taken in the public interest, and in a publicly accountable way. And that if there is disagreement, the matter should be brought before an independent arbitration group. I would question whether any of that was observed.

Also, we make a big deal of repatriating soldiers in this country. It's not reasonable to compare a single long-lost king with the great numbers in the World Wars who were buried near to where they fell. This is a single individual, a nation's monarch, so he should be "brought home", and he did call going to York a "home-coming" in his letters. henry I was brought from France to the place he wished to be buried. Richard himself re-interred his father and brother from their original burial location - to a place "appropriate to them", Fotheringhay.

Also upon finding the lost remains of a missing person - imagine any well-known case from the news over the last decades - we do not insist that they are buried locally to where they fell, or where they were hidden, but they are removed from that location and all its negative associations, and family members chose a more appropriate place.

How can we accord these dignities to people in our time but not to the remains of a king, just because the passage of time is longer? Richard did not call Leicester home; MoJ guidleines do not suggest that "the remains have to be buried locally", despite what the Under-Secretary suggested in his closing statement yesterday. The licence, even as it stands (and it is, to my mind, no longer applicable) allows the Uni to re-inter elsewhere - "in a burial ground in which interments may legally take place".

My letters would go to Leicester Univeristy Registrar (Mr Dave Hall) to encourage the licence-holders to consider York for all of the above reasons; to both of the York MP's (Hugh Bayley and Julian Sturdy) to support them in whatever "talks" are agreed upon; to the Society exec to urge them to support York; to York Minster Chapter, to encourage them to welcome the remains, should a different location be sought; to the Under-Secretary for Justice, Jeremy Wright, to remind him of the guidelines in his own dept-sponsored document. Also - to all of the above - mentioning the current concern that the "space" allowed for a suitable tomb etc in Leicester Cathedral seems to be an issue - which would raise concern about dignity and a fitting national monument to a king of England. A tomb in the vast grandeur and *space* of York Minster would be more accessible, more dignified, more fitting and more appropriate to Richard's well-known and strong connections with
that city.

The emails for all of these people/bodies can be easily found.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
> >
> > Where can we email?
> >
>
>
> No idea, Ishita. I'm sending mine by post, but I'm not yet even sure where or to whom! I'm sure I'll think of something as soon as I've finished channelling Winston Churchill for my persuasive arguments... though I think I might be getting Marie Corelli on the line, as my prose seems a tad purple in places. Oh, well.
>
> But I'm thinking everyone from the Dean of Leicester to the Prince of Wales, basically. Damn it, I'll throw in the EU department of cultural heritage, for good measure. And Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire (just because I've always wanted to write a fan letter to Deborah, Duchess of Devonshire; I doubt she actually has anything to say about Richard). And if all else fails, I'll write to Margaret of Burgundy...
>
> What is there to lose, except ink and stamps? (And possibly sanity, but that's long gone anyway!)
>

See my post to Colyngbourne. I think we are in with a very good chance - a Minister's reputation could be at stake. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:00
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Ishita..as an Englishwoman it makes me feel ashamed...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Pamella, you completely echo my feelings!! How can they?!! I voted even though they are going to ignore any sort of poll......
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 12, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Pamela Garrett <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> > This is an absolute travesty! Apparently, they have decided not to listen to the wishes of the the Society--or the public--at all. They need to be reminded that if weren't for the dedication, perseverance and monumental effort of Philippa, JAH, Phil and the Society there would BE no remains for them milk for tourist dollars. How dare they treat him like this? I'm on the West coast of the US and this is not the way I would've liked to start my day! It makes me absolutely livid! Everyone should be sure to vote for in the poll, which has huge numbers in favor of a tomb. We cannot just go quietly and let this happen.
> >
> >
> > Pamela Garrett
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
 
Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > Richard's memorial.
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > >
> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.

It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.


________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
 
Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 

Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > Richard's memorial.
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > >
> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.

Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a wider public issue that should be taken into account.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.
>
> It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  
> I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
>  
> Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
> enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > >
> > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> (I think we can definitely infer "not Leicester");

Not Leicester as a place, no - but "near the Yorkist soldiers who died with
him" and "right at the centre of his kingdom" might well appeal. He was
determined to die a king. But if Leicester don't have the facilities to
inter him with proper pomp then that changes the equation *and* they're
going to lose out on a lot of those tourist dollars so it won't even do them
much good.

Of course, in the past, if there wasn't room for a substantial tomb, they
would have built a whole side-chapel for it, but I suppose an extension to a
cathedral would be prohibitively expensive.

I agree, Colyngbourne, however much of the comment I have seen, both on this forum and in the media, imply that Leicester is only interested in Richard for the money his reburial would bring, whereas the pro-York people are somehow above all that.  The argument about tourism is not helpful.

As to where it is most appropriate to re-inter Richard, it could be argued that in the middle of his kingdom might be better (as he was King of England, not King of the North).

The other thing is, had Richard reigned and died in the fullness of time, he would not have been buried in York, but in London or Windsor.


________________________________
colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:


Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say).  (snip)

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.
>
> It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  
> I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
>  
> Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>  
>
> Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
> enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > > Richard's memorial.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).à In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > à
> > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > > >
> > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan
> > > > >
> > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I've obviously touched a raw nerve.
I think it's unlikely that the Univ would have undertaken the dig without the money and encouragement of R3 Society and when they did so, it was in quite a half-hearted way, as came over in the documentary. And to be cynical, once they thought they had found him, who wouldn't work hard to verify it? Think of the future funding, the awards, the fame. Gone are the days when universities were altruistic, if they ever were. Funding and fame are their lifeblood and I don't decry them for being selfish over that.
But it is selfish if they make the choice of burial for someone with whom they clearly have little emotional attachment and if they have not revealed that there was in fact scope within their licence for him to be buried somewhere other than Leicester and to undergo a full consultation process.
The tourism thing is actually secondary, but there would seem little reason, other than he fell near there, and was dumped in a grave there, for Leicester to lay claim, now that we know he could be buried in any 'appropriate place'. It has been argued on here that there are many more appropriate places, including York and my personal feeling is that he should at least be buried somewhere with which he had at least a family association, and there are quite a few of those.
Leicester Cathedral's  latest 'restrictions' on his tomb - and we shall see those at noon - would indicate to me now that he should be somewhere more deserving of him.
H
   
________________________________

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 10:28
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.

It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.

________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
 
Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > Richard's memorial.
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > >
> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

Tewkesbury?

From: Hilary Jones
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

>>> It has been argued on here that there are many more appropriate places, including York and my personal feeling is that he should at least be buried somewhere with which he had at least a family association, and there are quite a few of those.<<<

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Tewkesbury?
>


To be honest, Tewkesbury makes me more than a bit uncomfortable, seeing how the popular/Shakespearean perception is that Richard 'murdered' Edward of Lancaster there.

At the Conference, Philippa said that the TV crew shot 60 hours of film.  We have only seen 2 1/2 of 'edited' film.  Yes, Dr A did come across as rather inept, in the same way that Philippa came across as highly emotional - but I would think that was more to do with the way it was edited, than people's actual reactions.  I don't think we can truly say the University was only 'half-hearted' because there was so much we didn't see.

 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:


I've obviously touched a raw nerve.
I think it's unlikely that the Univ would have undertaken the dig without the money and encouragement of R3 Society and when they did so, it was in quite a half-hearted way, as came over in the documentary.  (snip)
   
________________________________

From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
To: ">
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 10:28
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.

It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.

________________________________
 Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:

 
I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
 
Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  

________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
> > > Richard's memorial.
> > >
> > >
> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
> > >
> > >
> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
> > > not like the idea of a slab.
> > >
> > >
> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  
> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
> > >
> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
> > >
> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
> > > >
> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>

That wouldn't bother me. If we pay heed to what Shakespeare said, we may as well not bother at all, but just put poor Richard back under the car park. Tewkesbury does have family links (including Clarence, his widow and son - http://www.flickr.com/photos/32157648@N08/5019811406/) and was the scene of a notable Yorkist victory. So why not? It's infinitely better than Leicestershire. (Still booing about that one!) There are also some interesting locks of hair preserved there. Sorry, I can't remember whose, but they are early and include, I'm feel sure, Anne Neville's grandmother. It's some time since I saw them. They used to be on display, but now an appointment has to be made to see them. An interesting thought for DNA?

Sandra

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Tewkesbury?
>

To be honest, Tewkesbury makes me more than a bit uncomfortable, seeing how the popular/Shakespearean perception is that Richard 'murdered' Edward of Lancaster there.

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> That wouldn’t bother me. If we pay heed to what Shakespeare said, we may as well not bother at all, but just put poor Richard back under the car park. Tewkesbury does have family links (including Clarence, his widow and son - http://www.flickr.com/photos/32157648@N08/5019811406/) and was the scene of a notable Yorkist victory. So why not? It’s infinitely better than Leicestershire.
>


I think you misunderstand me - what Shakespeare et al. say doesn't bother *me* or affect *my* view of Richard, but it does affect the popular perception of him. As one of the common misconceptions about Richard is that he killed Edward of Lancaster, and was at least partly responsible for the death of Clarence, burying him under the same roof with them would invite rather pointless controversy. In my opinion.

Hello Nat,Well spoken fellow branch member.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Nat" <schumisalo@...> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
> Hi everyone!
> Nat- Yorkshire.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> > Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> > Come on society committee.
> > God Bless Richard.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christine,
> > >  
> > > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> > > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> > >
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Please forgive me if my response caused offence. It wasn't meant to. I think I'm so mad about this whole disgraceful business that I am not as nice' as usual. I still like Gloucester or Tewkesbury, but perhaps that's pure selfishness. I live midway between the two, and would like him on my doorstep, so to speak. Not literally, of course, because that would be an even meaner slab than the one already discussed!

Sandra

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 12:15 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Tewkesbury


--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> That wouldn’t bother me. If we pay heed to what Shakespeare said, we may as well not bother at all, but just put poor Richard back under the car park. Tewkesbury does have family links (including Clarence, his widow and son - http://www.flickr.com/photos/32157648@N08/5019811406/) and was the scene of a notable Yorkist victory. So why not? It’s infinitely better than Leicestershire.
>

I think you misunderstand me - what Shakespeare et al. say doesn't bother *me* or affect *my* view of Richard, but it does affect the popular perception of him. As one of the common misconceptions about Richard is that he killed Edward of Lancaster, and was at least partly responsible for the death of Clarence, burying him under the same roof with them would invite rather pointless controversy. In my opinion.

Nat, I think you make many valid points. Since the voting on what should be done is almost 90% for a tomb, if the Leicester Cathedral does not have room, then another suitable site should be found. Am I crazy in thinking that the Royal Family should step up and make some sort of announcement. Maybe not....wherever they choose will be upset over the decision, and I imagine her Majesty does not want to step into "it" . But, we I would think that we all (not just Ricardians) want a dignified, and glorious final resting for this once lost and now found King of England!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of christineholmes651@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury



Hello Nat,Well spoken fellow branch member.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Nat" <schumisalo@...<mailto:schumisalo@...>> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
> Hi everyone!
> Nat- Yorkshire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> > Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> > Come on society committee.
> > God Bless Richard.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christine,
> > > Ã'Â
> > > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > Ã'Â
> > >
> > > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> > >
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I have just had a look at the Design Brief. Certain things in it upset me but a Tomb is not ruled out as yet. I see that no entrance fee will be charged -unlike York where you have to pay to get beyond the entrance and shop. I think we need to take a step back at this early stage and see what develops. It appears the the General public will get to voice their opinions in the Summer
 Carole

________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:50
Subject: RE: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


 
Nat, I think you make many valid points. Since the voting on what should be done is almost 90% for a tomb, if the Leicester Cathedral does not have room, then another suitable site should be found. Am I crazy in thinking that the Royal Family should step up and make some sort of announcement. Maybe not....wherever they choose will be upset over the decision, and I imagine her Majesty does not want to step into "it" . But, we I would think that we all (not just Ricardians) want a dignified, and glorious final resting for this once lost and now found King of England!

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of christineholmes651@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:15 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

Hello Nat,Well spoken fellow branch member.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Nat" <schumisalo@...<mailto:schumisalo@...>> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the
backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
> Hi everyone!
> Nat- Yorkshire.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> > Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> > Come on society committee.
> > God Bless Richard.
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> > Christine
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christine,
> > > Ã'Â
> > > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > Ã'Â
> > >
> > > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> > >
> > > Christine
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In , "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> Please forgive me if my response caused offence. It wasn’t meant to. I think I’m so mad about this whole disgraceful business that I am not as ‘nice’ as usual. I still like Gloucester or Tewkesbury, but perhaps that’s pure selfishness. I live midway between the two, and would like him on my doorstep, so to speak. Not literally, of course, because that would be an even meaner slab than the one already discussed!
>


No offence taken, Sandra!! None at all. I understand the strong feelings, as I share them (even if I don't agree about Tewkesbury!). I feel strongly that wherever he's buried, both the place and the funeral should befit a King. At this point I fear it isn't going to happen without heated arguments.

Hi Arthur - thanks for your suggestion - I like it, if indeed the memorial
must be a slab. Do you have any other avenues to push this idea? -
contacts with people who make modern brasses & might be nudged in the
direction of the "design brief." Based on comments posted here (which lead
me to thoughts that shouldn't be expressed in polite company) I haven't had
the heart to actually read the document, but I suppose it is, more or less,
a request for proposals that meet the design brief???

A J

On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> If possession of the remains & burial at Leicester with a 'Slab' does
> indeed turn out to happen,
> I would again urge consideration be given to a 'Monumental Brass'.
>
> This could be made to fit into a 'slab' but would be much, much, more
> than Just a 'Slab'.
>
> As I said in an earlier 'Rant' this would be the 'Only Example' of a
> 'King of England' in Brass.
>
> Those who want the 'Boar' to be in the proposed Monument, Could, I would
> suggest, have Richard's feet 'Resting on a figure of a 'Boar' as is the
> case in many monuments of the day.
> [Figures have their feet rest on Dogs, Lions, Grassy Mounds etc.]
>
> As a personal view I would favour a 'Family Type' Tomb/Brass with his
> wife Anne in figure form, Included, Lying next to him. If wished a small
> figure of their son could also be added underneath.
> The Brass could include coloured enamels.
>
> Figure Brasses of the Era are usually shown with 'Hands Clasped In
> Prayer' however a rarer example might be to emulate having the couple 'Hold
> Hands'
> [A very attractive example of this is to be found in the Brass of Sir
> Robert Del Bothe or Booth from Wilmslow, Cheshire]
>
> Incidentally No Other examples of a 'King' Survive in Brass in England.
> King Robert the Bruce is the only example in Scotland.
>
> I would certainly contribute to such a project. Many of his
> 'Contemporaries' are thus commemorated.
>
> See: http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/page78.html#Wydevyl
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Arthur.
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: "christineholmes651@...
> christineholmes651@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> >Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> >
> >Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want
> the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> >It's in the Leicester Mercury
> >York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people
> who work there.
> >
> >Christine
> >Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Westminster & Windsor BOTH need permission of H.M. Queen. [Westminster is a 'Royal Peculiar' which means it is 'Outside' the authority of a Bishop.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:10
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>I agree, Colyngbourne, however much of the comment I have seen, both on this forum and in the media, imply that Leicester is only interested in Richard for the money his reburial would bring, whereas the pro-York people are somehow above all that.  The argument about tourism is not helpful.
>
>As to where it is most appropriate to re-inter Richard, it could be argued that in the middle of his kingdom might be better (as he was King of England, not King of the North).
>
>The other thing is, had Richard reigned and died in the fullness of time, he would not have been buried in York, but in London or Windsor.
>
>________________________________
>colyngbourne <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say).  (snip)
>
>--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, Hilary, but I think you are being somewhat unfair to the University.  It is the perceived wisdom of archaeologists that you don't go looking for famous people, because you won't find them.  They didn't expect to find Richard, but when they did, they worked hard to prove his identity etc.
>>
>> It is also unfair to assume that somehow Leicester is only involved for the money made from tourism whereas other people (presumably from Yorkshire) are only interested in what they assume to be Richard's personal wishes.  In fact the same point was made by a York MP earlier during a TV interview  - that having him in York would be good for their tourism.
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>  Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>>  
>> I was obviously watching Masterchef at the wrong time! Eileen, your passion impresses me. The selfishness of Leicester Uni doesn't - it was revealed they've won a top award for this project; one they didn't believe in.
>>  
>> Let's hope all this means that in the end he goes somewhere that really does want him, not just to generate another tourist buck and a few awards...H  
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
>> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>> >
>> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
>> enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
>> > >
>> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
>> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>> > > >
>> > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
>> > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
>> > > > Richard's memorial.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
>> > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
>> > > > not like the idea of a slab.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).à In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
>> > > >
>> > > > Jonathan
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ________________________________
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > à
>> > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
>> > > >
>> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
>> > > >
>> > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a faitaccompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Jonathan
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Fotheringhay?
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 11:20
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Tewkesbury?
>
>From: Hilary Jones
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:12 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>>>> It has been argued on here that there are many more appropriate places, including York and my personal feeling is that he should at least be buried somewhere with which he had at least a family association, and there are quite a few of those.<<<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

  It is very sad if grown up people cannot debate a point.

  More sad when the current Dean of  York gets abusive mail, It was NOT her fault that she was previously 
Dean of Leicester, The 'Co-incidence' here is as great as the letter 'R' on the car park.

  As long as Democracy rules nobody can object.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 1:24
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Another Texas-sized hug for our valiant warrior! You just chill tonight and we'll take care that your war-horse has a little nosh on some oats while we're brushing her coat and oiling her hooves for the combat to come.
>
>--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Ishita...A girl can never have too many hugs....bring them on :0)
>>
>> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Eileen, Sending a group hug your way.
>> > We are all in this together.
>> >
>> > Ishita Bandyo
>> > Sent from my iPad
>> >
>> > On Mar 12, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Thank you Colyngbourne...Those who care about this matter should do whatever is in their power to make their feelings known.letters emails....."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and although it is over-dramatising to call this situation 'evil' Im sure these words apply to a lesser extent to what could possibly be happening to Richard's memorial now....We need to stand up and be counted..Eileen
>> > >
>> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Eileen, I am sure it would be possible to write to the University with your feelings - I think the Registrar is the person to write to apparently - or to the Ministry of Justice Under-Secretary who closed the debate.
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got enough
to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>> > > > > > > > To:
>> > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
>> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
>> > > > > > > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
>> > > > > > > > Richard's memorial.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
>> > > > > > > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
>> > > > > > > > not like the idea of a slab.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue). In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Jonathan
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Jonathan
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

 A.J.,
 There are Still companies or individuals that design & make 'Monumental Brasses', 
No Doubt the 'Monumental Brass Society would advise here. [Their Website is interesting.]

  Whilst I favour the idea of a 'Table Top' Tomb, I can understand the Cathedral at Leicester [NOT my choice] wanting a 'Slab' as this would from their point of view fit in better with modern services. 

   I think the offer of a 'Place of Honour' in front of the Chancel seems very  fair, but then in days of
 'Yore' a 'Chapel/Chantry Chapel' would have been on offer for a King. 

  His 'Adversaries' Henry VII has of course the magnificent tomb by William Torel  in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, Whilst The Earl of Derby [Lord Stanley.] has an Alabaster Effigy in Ormskirk Church's 'Derby Chapel, near to my home.

  I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of the form this took.

  I have living near me a young 'Sculptor' Thompson Dagnall http://www.thompsondagnall.co.uk/list%20of%20works.htm
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:58
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>Hi Arthur - thanks for your suggestion - I like it, if indeed the memorial
>must be a slab.  Do you have any other avenues to push this idea? -
>contacts with people who make modern brasses & might be nudged in the
>direction of the "design brief."  Based on comments posted here (which lead
>me to thoughts that shouldn't be expressed in polite company) I haven't
had
>the heart to actually read the document, but I suppose it is, more or less,
>a request for proposals that meet the design brief???
>
>A J
>
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>>  If possession of the remains & burial at Leicester with a 'Slab' does
>> indeed turn out to happen,
>> I would again urge consideration be given to a 'Monumental Brass'.
>>
>>  This could be made to fit into a 'slab' but would be much, much, more
>> than Just a 'Slab'.
>>
>>  As I said in an earlier 'Rant' this would be the 'Only Example' of a
>> 'King of England' in Brass.
>>
>>  Those who want the 'Boar' to be in the proposed Monument, Could, I would
>> suggest, have Richard's feet 'Resting on a figure of a 'Boar' as is the
>> case in
many monuments of the day.
>> [Figures have their feet rest on Dogs, Lions, Grassy Mounds etc.]
>>
>>  As a personal view I would favour a 'Family Type' Tomb/Brass with his
>> wife Anne in figure form, Included, Lying next to him. If wished a small
>> figure of their son could also be added underneath.
>> The Brass could include coloured enamels.
>>
>>  Figure Brasses of the Era are usually shown with 'Hands Clasped In
>> Prayer' however a rarer example might be to emulate having the couple 'Hold
>> Hands'
>> [A very attractive example of this is to be found in the Brass of Sir
>> Robert Del Bothe or Booth from Wilmslow, Cheshire]
>>
>> Incidentally No Other examples of a 'King' Survive in Brass in England.
>> King Robert the Bruce is the only example in Scotland.
>>
>>  I would certainly contribute to such a project. Many of his
>>
'Contemporaries' are thus commemorated.
>>
>>  See:  http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/page78.html#Wydevyl
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: "christineholmes651@...
>> christineholmes651@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
>> >Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want
>> the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>> >It's in the Leicester Mercury
>>
>York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people
>> who work there.
>> >
>> >Christine
>> >Loyaulte me Lie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:27 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury



> I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of
> the form this took.

An actual effigy plus some sort of slab or tombstone with an inscription
describing him as a true king who had lost in battle to our 'enery, who had
piously paid to commemorate his defeated opponent in a suitably kingly
manner, ending in a request for the reader to pray for Richard's soul. It
was described as being in multi-coloured stone but that may mean painted
stone.

Ive read somewhere that it was a mingled coloured marble...Whatever it was it was probably better than what Richard is going to end up with now...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Arthurian
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
>
> > I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of
> > the form this took.
>
> An actual effigy plus some sort of slab or tombstone with an inscription
> describing him as a true king who had lost in battle to our 'enery, who had
> piously paid to commemorate his defeated opponent in a suitably kingly
> manner, ending in a request for the reader to pray for Richard's soul. It
> was described as being in multi-coloured stone but that may mean painted
> stone.
>

  Alabaster was certainly painted very often, Multicoloured stone very uncommon [I Cannot Recall One]
Considering how 'Penny Pinching' Henry CERTAINLY was, how curious he got his wallet out? {Conscience?]

  Also curious his body & tomb were not translated at the dissolution to Leicester or somewhere nearby.
[Lord Stanley/1st Earl of Derby was 'Translated' [moved] from Burscough Priory at the dissolution to it's present location in Ormskirk Parish Church. - Though then they had relatives still above ground!!]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:44
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>From: Arthurian
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>> I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of
>> the form this took.
>
>An actual effigy plus some sort of slab or tombstone with an inscription
>describing him as a true king who had lost in battle to our 'enery, who had
>piously paid to commemorate his defeated opponent in a suitably kingly
>manner, ending in a request for the reader to pray for Richard's soul. It
>was described as being in multi-coloured stone but that may mean painted
>stone.
>
>
>
>
>

I am not sure what 'Mingled Coloured Marble is'  Certainly most marbles are from Italy.

There is a thing about 'Monarchy' in that they are reluctant to kill another of 'God's Anointed'  [Witness Elizabeth over MQ. of Scots & of Course Richard II & Henry Bolingbrokes 'Guilt?]
[Or did I get the latter from the Bard??]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 22:48
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Ive read somewhere that it was a mingled coloured marble...Whatever it was it was probably better than what Richard is going to end up with now...Eileen
>
>--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>>
>> From: Arthurian
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:27 PM
>> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>>
>>
>>
>> > I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of
>> > the form this took.
>>
>> An actual effigy plus some sort of slab or tombstone with an inscription
>> describing him as a true king who had lost in battle to our 'enery, who had
>> piously paid to commemorate his defeated opponent in a suitably kingly
>> manner, ending in a request for the reader to pray for Richard's soul. It
>> was described as being in multi-coloured stone but that may mean painted
>> stone.
>>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Arthurian
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:53 PM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> Alabaster was certainly painted very often, Multicoloured stone very
> uncommon [I Cannot Recall One]
Considering how 'Penny Pinching' Henry CERTAINLY was, how curious he got his
wallet out? {Conscience?]

There was an element of the publicity opportunity about it, and of
emphasising that kings should be respected, but Henry might have felt bad
about not having prevented his men from abusing Richard's body. And
although Henry was tight he was capable of acts of whimsical generosity,
giving fortunes to pretty girls or children's choirs apparently just because
they made him smile.

As a 'New Kid on the Block' I wonder if   EVERYONE who is feeling an injustice here, Indeed compounding an 'Age Old Injustice' Writes, NOT electronically, to Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince Harry [He is a 'Younger Brother'] Duke of Gloucester, New Archbishop of Cantab., Dean of Leicester University, Prime Minister, William Hague [Yorkshireman/Cabinet Minister.] There ARE many others.

  I have taken a good look at Leicester Cathedral, without setting out to insult anybody it IS only a Pleasant, large town church, never in the same class as the MANY Cathedrals that adorn this land. 
Many with side chapels, aisles etc that could more readily accommodate a tomb of the type many people out there feel is warranted.

  Both the Dean & Chapter of the Cathedral and the University Authority plainly need to re-consider the current situation, It would be a pity if unnecessary acrimony & abuse is generated from this amazing discovery.

  I would appeal to ALL of those involved to keep away from personal remarks and understand these are unproductive all around. Richard's Honour Calls for Better.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:34
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Its much too important to be left to Leicester University to make arrangements/choices...this is the burial of annointed king God damit! Let's hope commonsense and decency prevail...Honestly you really couldnt make it up? I do despair...I really do...Eileen
>
>--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> I agree, it's a dreadful situation at the moment and needs sorting. Which is why Hugh Bayley was requesting that the matter be taken out of the hands of Leicester Uni - who even though they have the licence, it refers to "persons unknown" and that's no longer our Richard. They have the option to choose elsewhere and should be encouraged to do so, so that the King may have a fitting tomb and surroundings for the future. I hope that whatever process is decided upon to help the situation, that it is wider, higher and broader than the process thus far embarked upon.
>>
>> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Jonathan...who knows....it seems such a mish mash...to tell you the truth I feel depressed about it all now. All I've ever desired even before Richard was found was to have a grave that I could visit and pay my respects. When he was found it was just wonderful...and one would have thought that would have been the hardest part. But no! I dont know all the ins and outs but it is becoming apparent that there are problems.....this is not rocket science. A king needs burying...Of all the cathedrals we have, chapels such as St George's Chapel at Windsor etc., I dont think this can just be left to Leicester Uni to sort out which I read somewhere is the case. you would think that the hierarchy of this country could get something sorted. It begs the question do *they* really care enough. None of the cathedral authorities seem to care...none of the Royal Family seem to care...What has the Duke of Gloucester said...or Prince Charles...he's got
enough to say about wind farms...Sweet Fanny Adams...Its deplorable..I feel really let down. Eileenb
>> >
>> > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
>> > > To:
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 18:46
>> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>> > >
>> > > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the
>> > > start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for
>> > > Richard's memorial.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Were they even asked, given that the gun's been jumped so spectacularly with the tendering process?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the
>> > > truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do
>> > > not like the idea of a slab.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I think that if the advertised design is not chosen, the money will have to be returned (certainly any smaller amounts - it may be a different matter with major gifts where there's an ongoing dialogue).  In which case, who will pay for whatever *is* selected, be it at Leicester, York or elsewhere?
>> > >
>> > > Jonathan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >  
>> > > Well I did fully intend to contribute...I would have been very happy to... but I can see it is a good thing I havent done so because to tell you the truth its going to get messy if those that have already contributed do not like the idea of a slab. I can see this project going pear shaped before my very eyes...
>> > >
>> > > I am shocked that Leicester Cathedral did not make it clear from the start they would have no space or very limited space to free up for Richard's memorial. Its rather late in the day...Is it any wonder that people feel angry...? Of course it is not nice nor fitting that there should be rows ensuing about Richard's resting place..it is unseemly but what do you do if you feel there is a massive cock-up taking place...?
>> > >
>> > > Im actually finding it very hard to digest this piece of news....Eileen
>> > >
>> > > --- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > It's a generic "we" - it's not a reference to anyone specific, nor even to the group in general. Everyone just needs to take the heat out of the debate.
>> > > >
>> > > > As for being led up the garden path, the Society is to some extent to blame. They shouldn't have presented the tomb plans without provisional agreement that they would be acceptable. It now looks like they were hoping for a fait accompli, which is always dangerous. I'm also, as someone whose day job is fundraising, uncomfortable with them soliciting for funds without that provisional agreement.
>> > > >
>> > > > Jonathan
>> > > >
>> > > > Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Well Said!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 21:38
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Jonathan Evans wrote:
>>
>> According to the Telegraph, Vivienne Faull, the Dean of York, has received hate-mail over this.
>>
>> Can't we be more grown-up?
>>
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9924961/Dean-of-York-goes-to-the-police-over-Richard-III-hate-mail.html
>>
>> Jonathan
>
>Carol responds:
>
>I agree. It looks very bad for the Richard III Society if Ricardians, whether or not they are members, behave in such a disrespectful and dishonorable manner.
>
>According to the article, "Hugh Bayley, the Labour MP for York Central, used a speech in the Commons to appeal for calm . . . . "
>
>The article quotes him as saying, "I would say to everybody - calm down. Let's all respect the memory of a former king of our country.
>
>"Let's discuss where his remains should be put to rest in a dignified and sober way. We don't want to reignite the Wars of the Roses."
>
>Please, whether you're for York, Leicester, or somewhere else, whether you like the proposed tomb or not, let's just calm down and let the MPs and Leicester University and the R III Society and anyone else who's involved work things out.
>
>Everyone involved wants the same thing we do--an appropriate ceremony and an equally appropriate final resting place. Richard would not be happy to see people fighting over his remains or the design for his tomb.
>
>Trust the people concerned, all of whom are citizens of the country that Richard once ruled, to find a logical, workable solution that satisfies as many people as possible.
>
>No one is going to let him end up with a slab instead of a tomb. He already has a slab. Let's not get upset about something that hasn't even happened!
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

I am afraid the Royal family perhaps still adhere to the traditional view and do not particularly care about Richard or where he ends up...... I might be completely wrong of course. But it is mighty strange that there hasn't been a peep from the Family. Not even something inconsequential like " how interesting"!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> Nat, I think you make many valid points. Since the voting on what should be done is almost 90% for a tomb, if the Leicester Cathedral does not have room, then another suitable site should be found. Am I crazy in thinking that the Royal Family should step up and make some sort of announcement. Maybe not....wherever they choose will be upset over the decision, and I imagine her Majesty does not want to step into "it" . But, we I would think that we all (not just Ricardians) want a dignified, and glorious final resting for this once lost and now found King of England!
>
> From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:15 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
> Hello Nat,Well spoken fellow branch member.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Nat" <schumisalo@...<mailto:schumisalo@...>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
> > Hi everyone!
> > Nat- Yorkshire.
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> > > Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> > > Come on society committee.
> > > God Bless Richard.
> > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Christine,
> > > > Ã'Â
> > > > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > > > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > Ã'Â
> > > >
> > > > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > > > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > > > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> > > >
> > > > Christine
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester
Mercury


> I am afraid the Royal family perhaps still adhere to the traditional view
> and do not particularly care about Richard or where he ends up...... I
> might be completely wrong of course. But it is mighty strange that there
> hasn't been a peep from the Family. Not even something inconsequential
> like " how interesting"!

Well - if Richard's claim was valid and Edward was a bigamist, that means
that the current Royal family's claim to the throne of England rests solely
on HenryVII's conquest. [Their claim to the throne of Scotland is separate
and much stronger, since even though they're not the most senior Stuart
line, the more senior lines have stepped aside.] So they're bound to be
more comfortable thinking Richard was a Usurper.

The Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick has been laid down in the Tudor era, It is as you describe an excellent place. However I suspect it would be best left alone, EVEN for Richard.

 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:37
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge! 
>
>________________________________
>From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>
>Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.
>
>Sandra
>
>From: Arthurian
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
>Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.
>
>What about Gloucester if York wavers?
>[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry to 'Disagree', as it stands just a large parish church, not big enough & Dudley, for all his faults has been there a long time [His little lads tomb is very moving.] NOT to be moved!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:46
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>The Beauchamp Chapel is a fitting place, and I'm all for nudging Robert Dudley. Anywhere. I'd still prefer Gloucester, though. It IS Richard, he carried its name for so long and he would be more than welcome, I'm sure. Mind, that's me speaking, I don't have a hot line to the bishop!
>
>Sandra
>
>From: Hilary Jones
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:37 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>I'm for where he wanted to be, of course. But I'm surprised no-one has suggested the glorious Beauchamp Chapel at St Mary's Warwick - 'home' to his wife's grandfather and close to his Warwick home. I'm sure they could find a spot for him, even if they had to give Robert Dudley a nudge!
>
>________________________________
>From: SandraMachin <mailto:sandramachin%40live.co.uk>
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 13:13
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>Well, Gloucester is my choice, of course. But then I'm biased. The tomb of Edward II is very beautiful, and of course it has Richard II's white hart badges painted all around it. Our Richard's white boar would look very good, methinks.
>
>Sandra
>
>From: Arthurian
>Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:53 PM
>To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>Very few Cathedrals have the 'Honour of A Kings Tomb' therein,
>Most Cathedrals Would Jump at the Chance, One would imagine.
>
>What about Gloucester if York wavers?
>[They have Edward II & must Know the benefits.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

colyngbourne wrote:

"Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are
unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate
to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people
petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but
from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have
access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English
Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known
to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published
articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and
the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished
York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St
Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.
Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come
into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch
having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a
wider public issue that should be taken into account."

Doug here:
I first want to say that I'm from the US and hold no particular brief for
either Leicester or York, both perfectly respectable and suitable sites for
a king as best I can tell.
I do think any worry about an influx of tourists is something that does need
to be considered because wherever Richard III's remains are placed *will*
see an increase in tourists. Nor is it merely a matter of whether or not
there's "room" in any particular Cathedral; it's also whether that providing
that space will force the reduce the ability of the Cathedral to provide a
place for worshippers to gather (it's main purpose), as well as serve as a
center for other community activities. It's a trade-off between providing a
tomb in a setting where those who wish to could pay their respects and still
continuing with the life of the Cathedral and community. Not unlike the
Middle Ages when one thinks about it.
As for inferring where Richard would *want* to be buried there is, in my
opinion, no question - Westminster Abbey. Anywhere else would be, at best,
where *we* might think he would prefer and that's not subjective at all. For
example, although I could fully understand him later looking back at the
time spent at York as a sort of Elysium, how do we know how he felt when he
was there? Are there any records of Richard's actual thoughts about the time
he spent in York? As best I can recall, there aren't (please correct me if
I'm mistaken), so what's happening is *we* are presuming that Richard liked
being at York, but we don't know that - it may have only been his strong
sense of duty, and his brother's wishes, that kept him there.
My view is that Richard died near Leicester, it's the nearest town with a
Cathedral so, just as with Edward II and Gloucester, there's absolutely no
reason *not* to re-inter his remains there. If, for whatever reason, the
authorities at Leicester Cathedral feel they can't properly honor him and,
as repatriating the bodies of fallen soldiers is a relatively new standard,
has any consideration been given to a tomb at/near where Richard died?
Something along the lines of two crossed gothic arches with Richard's coffin
inside a stone tomb? I have no idea whether or not such a thing would even
be feasible, but it seems to *me* that it would be both fitting and unique.
Just, please, hide the "car park"! I'd imagine Richard's had enough of
*that*...
Doug

The irony of it all......!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> Ive read somewhere that it was a mingled coloured marble...Whatever it was it was probably better than what Richard is going to end up with now...Eileen
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Arthurian
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> >
> >
> > > I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of
> > > the form this took.
> >
> > An actual effigy plus some sort of slab or tombstone with an inscription
> > describing him as a true king who had lost in battle to our 'enery, who had
> > piously paid to commemorate his defeated opponent in a suitably kingly
> > manner, ending in a request for the reader to pray for Richard's soul. It
> > was described as being in multi-coloured stone but that may mean painted
> > stone.
> >
>
>

See the Brief PUBLISHED Today from Leicester Cathedral.

Anyone Commenting on Possible Arrangements & needing to make INFORMED comment needs to read this.

[I would suggest]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Douglas Eugene Stamate <destama@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 1:41
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>
>colyngbourne wrote:
>
>"Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are
>unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate
>to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people
>petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but
>from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have
>access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English
>Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known
>to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published
>articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and
>the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished
>York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St
>Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.
>Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come
>into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch
>having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a
>wider public issue that should be taken into account."
>
>Doug here:
>I first want to say that I'm from the US and hold no particular brief for
>either Leicester or York, both perfectly respectable and suitable sites for
>a king as best I can tell.
>I do think any worry about an influx of tourists is something that does need
>to be considered because wherever Richard III's remains are placed *will*
>see an increase in tourists. Nor is it merely a matter of whether or not
>there's "room" in any particular Cathedral; it's also whether that providing
>that space will force the reduce the ability of the Cathedral to provide a
>place for worshippers to gather (it's main purpose), as well as serve as a
>center for other community activities. It's a trade-off between providing a
>tomb in a setting where those who wish to could pay their respects and still
>continuing with the life of the Cathedral and community. Not unlike the
>Middle Ages when one thinks about it.
>As for inferring where Richard would *want* to be buried there is, in my
>opinion, no question - Westminster Abbey. Anywhere else would be, at best,
>where *we* might think he would prefer and that's not subjective at all. For
>example, although I could fully understand him later looking back at the
>time spent at York as a sort of Elysium, how do we know how he felt when he
>was there? Are there any records of Richard's actual thoughts about the time
>he spent in York? As best I can recall, there aren't (please correct me if
>I'm mistaken), so what's happening is *we* are presuming that Richard liked
>being at York, but we don't know that - it may have only been his strong
>sense of duty, and his brother's wishes, that kept him there.
>My view is that Richard died near Leicester, it's the nearest town with a
>Cathedral so, just as with Edward II and Gloucester, there's absolutely no
>reason *not* to re-inter his remains there. If, for whatever reason, the
>authorities at Leicester Cathedral feel they can't properly honor him and,
>as repatriating the bodies of fallen soldiers is a relatively new standard,
>has any consideration been given to a tomb at/near where Richard died?
>Something along the lines of two crossed gothic arches with Richard's coffin
>inside a stone tomb? I have no idea whether or not such a thing would even
>be feasible, but it seems to *me* that it would be both fitting and unique.
>Just, please, hide the "car park"! I'd imagine Richard's had enough of
>*that*...
>Doug
>
>
>
>
>

Claire, yes. Definitely. But since there is no one else to claim the throne, I would think their position is pretty solid. One of the most amazing archeological discovery in their country and not even a word!! Very strange.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester
> Mercury
>
> > I am afraid the Royal family perhaps still adhere to the traditional view
> > and do not particularly care about Richard or where he ends up...... I
> > might be completely wrong of course. But it is mighty strange that there
> > hasn't been a peep from the Family. Not even something inconsequential
> > like " how interesting"!
>
> Well - if Richard's claim was valid and Edward was a bigamist, that means
> that the current Royal family's claim to the throne of England rests solely
> on HenryVII's conquest. [Their claim to the throne of Scotland is separate
> and much stronger, since even though they're not the most senior Stuart
> line, the more senior lines have stepped aside.] So they're bound to be
> more comfortable thinking Richard was a Usurper.
>
>

Obviously ability to absorb increased "footfall" is something that needs to be considered by whichever location receives Richard's remains.

However on the point of burying people in the nearest location, I cannot agree. Whilst the modern practice of repatriation is 'new' for the majority, in the case of Kings of England, it has been quite common for them to be brought from their place of death or original interment to places appropriate to them - Henry I,King John, Henry IV, Richard II, King Stephen, Richard I, and in Richard's lifetime, Henry VI (and also the remains of his father and brother - brought from Pontefract to Fotheringhay). There is good and respected royal precedent in this happening.

We do not bury people locally to where they happen to die; for our own loved ones, we bring them to a place which is appropriate to them, to a place with which they had some meaningful connection or affection. Upon finding lost remains of missing persons or murdered persons, no matter how long ago their decease, we do not insist that they are buried locally to where they were originally laid in the ground, a place with wholly negative associations for the deceased and their family, but we ensure that they are returned to their nearest relatives and to a place with which they were well-connected. Consider any tragic news-story about missing persons and murder cases, and it is evident what would happen should remains be found.

Why would our society believe and practice all this for ourselves and not accord the King of England the same dues? The passage of time makes no difference: in our treatment of the "known" dead, whether long-deceased or not, our society is encouraged and advised (by the national church and by the statutory advisory body to the government on such matters) to take into account the deceased's own life, and possible descendants' wishes. This needs to happen in this situation, and I trust that the Under-Secretary for Justice's intention to gather concerned parties together to resolve some of these issues, will be helpful.


--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
>
> "Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are
> unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate
> to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people
> petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but
> from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have
> access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English
> Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known
> to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published
> articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and
> the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished
> York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St
> Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.
> Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come
> into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch
> having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a
> wider public issue that should be taken into account."
>
> Doug here:
> I first want to say that I'm from the US and hold no particular brief for
> either Leicester or York, both perfectly respectable and suitable sites for
> a king as best I can tell.
> I do think any worry about an influx of tourists is something that does need
> to be considered because wherever Richard III's remains are placed *will*
> see an increase in tourists. Nor is it merely a matter of whether or not
> there's "room" in any particular Cathedral; it's also whether that providing
> that space will force the reduce the ability of the Cathedral to provide a
> place for worshippers to gather (it's main purpose), as well as serve as a
> center for other community activities. It's a trade-off between providing a
> tomb in a setting where those who wish to could pay their respects and still
> continuing with the life of the Cathedral and community. Not unlike the
> Middle Ages when one thinks about it.
> As for inferring where Richard would *want* to be buried there is, in my
> opinion, no question - Westminster Abbey. Anywhere else would be, at best,
> where *we* might think he would prefer and that's not subjective at all. For
> example, although I could fully understand him later looking back at the
> time spent at York as a sort of Elysium, how do we know how he felt when he
> was there? Are there any records of Richard's actual thoughts about the time
> he spent in York? As best I can recall, there aren't (please correct me if
> I'm mistaken), so what's happening is *we* are presuming that Richard liked
> being at York, but we don't know that - it may have only been his strong
> sense of duty, and his brother's wishes, that kept him there.
> My view is that Richard died near Leicester, it's the nearest town with a
> Cathedral so, just as with Edward II and Gloucester, there's absolutely no
> reason *not* to re-inter his remains there. If, for whatever reason, the
> authorities at Leicester Cathedral feel they can't properly honor him and,
> as repatriating the bodies of fallen soldiers is a relatively new standard,
> has any consideration been given to a tomb at/near where Richard died?
> Something along the lines of two crossed gothic arches with Richard's coffin
> inside a stone tomb? I have no idea whether or not such a thing would even
> be feasible, but it seems to *me* that it would be both fitting and unique.
> Just, please, hide the "car park"! I'd imagine Richard's had enough of
> *that*...
> Doug
>

I do think the debate was more important than some seem to think. Things will be watched, and it is such a pity no-one at Leicester Cathedral involved PR to run the statements through the design brief before it was released. As it is, as things are going, who would not choose the place where he is valued?



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 7:45
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

Obviously ability to absorb increased "footfall" is something that needs to be considered by whichever location receives Richard's remains.

However on the point of burying people in the nearest location, I cannot agree. Whilst the modern practice of repatriation is 'new' for the majority, in the case of Kings of England, it has been quite common for them to be brought from their place of death or original interment to places appropriate to them - Henry I,King John, Henry IV, Richard II, King Stephen, Richard I, and in Richard's lifetime, Henry VI (and also the remains of his father and brother - brought from Pontefract to Fotheringhay). There is good and respected royal precedent in this happening.

We do not bury people locally to where they happen to die; for our own loved ones, we bring them to a place which is appropriate to them, to a place with which they had some meaningful connection or affection. Upon finding lost remains of missing persons or murdered persons, no matter how long ago their decease, we do not insist that they are buried locally to where they were originally laid in the ground, a place with wholly negative associations for the deceased and their family, but we ensure that they are returned to their nearest relatives and to a place with which they were well-connected. Consider any tragic news-story about missing persons and murder cases, and it is evident what would happen should remains be found.

Why would our society believe and practice all this for ourselves and not accord the King of England the same dues? The passage of time makes no difference: in our treatment of the "known" dead, whether long-deceased or not, our society is encouraged and advised (by the national church and by the statutory advisory body to the government on such matters) to take into account the deceased's own life, and possible descendants' wishes. This needs to happen in this situation, and I trust that the Under-Secretary for Justice's intention to gather concerned parties together to resolve some of these issues, will be helpful.

--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>
>
> colyngbourne wrote:
>
> "Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are
> unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate
> to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people
> petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but
> from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have
> access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English
> Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known
> to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published
> articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and
> the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished
> York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St
> Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.
> Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come
> into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch
> having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a
> wider public issue that should be taken into account."
>
> Doug here:
> I first want to say that I'm from the US and hold no particular brief for
> either Leicester or York, both perfectly respectable and suitable sites for
> a king as best I can tell.
> I do think any worry about an influx of tourists is something that does need
> to be considered because wherever Richard III's remains are placed *will*
> see an increase in tourists. Nor is it merely a matter of whether or not
> there's "room" in any particular Cathedral; it's also whether that providing
> that space will force the reduce the ability of the Cathedral to provide a
> place for worshippers to gather (it's main purpose), as well as serve as a
> center for other community activities. It's a trade-off between providing a
> tomb in a setting where those who wish to could pay their respects and still
> continuing with the life of the Cathedral and community. Not unlike the
> Middle Ages when one thinks about it.
> As for inferring where Richard would *want* to be buried there is, in my
> opinion, no question - Westminster Abbey. Anywhere else would be, at best,
> where *we* might think he would prefer and that's not subjective at all. For
> example, although I could fully understand him later looking back at the
> time spent at York as a sort of Elysium, how do we know how he felt when he
> was there? Are there any records of Richard's actual thoughts about the time
> he spent in York? As best I can recall, there aren't (please correct me if
> I'm mistaken), so what's happening is *we* are presuming that Richard liked
> being at York, but we don't know that - it may have only been his strong
> sense of duty, and his brother's wishes, that kept him there.
> My view is that Richard died near Leicester, it's the nearest town with a
> Cathedral so, just as with Edward II and Gloucester, there's absolutely no
> reason *not* to re-inter his remains there. If, for whatever reason, the
> authorities at Leicester Cathedral feel they can't properly honor him and,
> as repatriating the bodies of fallen soldiers is a relatively new standard,
> has any consideration been given to a tomb at/near where Richard died?
> Something along the lines of two crossed gothic arches with Richard's coffin
> inside a stone tomb? I have no idea whether or not such a thing would even
> be feasible, but it seems to *me* that it would be both fitting and unique.
> Just, please, hide the "car park"! I'd imagine Richard's had enough of
> *that*...
> Doug
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury


> I do think the debate was more important than some seem to think.

When exactly was this debate and what was the programme about it called? I
don't think it was shown in Scotland - I certainly didn't see any listing
for it - but presumably it's available on iPlayer.

I am pretty sure that the Duke of Gloucester has expressed a wish to be at the re-burial and I think he would like to take part, though don't quote me on the taking part bit. It is difficult for the Queen because she has to abide by the law so until or if the Government step in she probably won't say anything. Also she probably won't make a comment as her role as Monarch is to be impartial and not comment.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> I am afraid the Royal family perhaps still adhere to the traditional view and do not particularly care about Richard or where he ends up...... I might be completely wrong of course. But it is mighty strange that there hasn't been a peep from the Family. Not even something inconsequential like " how interesting"!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:50 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> > Nat, I think you make many valid points. Since the voting on what should be done is almost 90% for a tomb, if the Leicester Cathedral does not have room, then another suitable site should be found. Am I crazy in thinking that the Royal Family should step up and make some sort of announcement. Maybe not....wherever they choose will be upset over the decision, and I imagine her Majesty does not want to step into "it" . But, we I would think that we all (not just Ricardians) want a dignified, and glorious final resting for this once lost and now found King of England!
> >
> > From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of christineholmes651@...
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:15 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> >
> > Hello Nat,Well spoken fellow branch member.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "Nat" <schumisalo@<mailto:schumisalo@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi everyone, first post here so I hope I did it properly. Being from Yorkshire and watching the Westminster video feed and knowing about the tomb/ Leicester carry on here are my thoughts. York is big enough for the tomb which has already been paid for by the people, Leicester have not right to deny the people nor our King that tomb. Leicester cathedral is a cramped place with a flea market, not a fitting peaceful resting place for a king. Walking over his tomb is in my view as bad as treason and cannot go ahead. As for the debate, great points put across but some points missing, the Dean of York was dean of Leicester and loves the place- count their view out. There is written proof by Richard himself he wanted at death to return to York, it's in Richard III The Road to Bosworth field book and lastly, a simple tomb is not fit for a King of England and I have pointed out today's article- and I have made the Labour York MPs aware of all this. I have the backing of the Yorkshire society and have a campaign page and a sister group along with many supporters wanting him in York, and after his burial it is to become a charity to go towards the courses Richard supported and put money towards and perhaps even bring back some of the things he supported which no longer exist, as well as campaigning for the real reputation of the man in history lessons today, not just the myth!
> > > Hi everyone!
> > > Nat- Yorkshire.
> > >
> > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Society got a lot of good press in the debate - I found the whole thing very civilised and watchable. As the Chair said, poor Richard as controversial in death as in life.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 11:45
> > > > Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes I just watched it too, Leicester have all along conveniently missed out on mentioning the " any appropriate Place," I'm glad it was brought up at the debate at last. Makes you wonder why they didn't mention it.
> > > > Its about time someone stuck up for Richard.
> > > > Come on society committee.
> > > > God Bless Richard.
> > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > Christine
> > > >
> > > > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Christine,
> > > > > Ã'Â
> > > > > Have just watched the very good burial debate in Westminster Hall. It has been pointed out that the terms of the exhumation Licence allow Leics Uni to bury him not just at Leicester Cathedral - but 'any appropriate place'. They have been urged to consult, given the strength of feeling on the issue and have been informed the Minister 'will be watching'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: "christineholmes651@" <christineholmes651@>
> > > > > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
> > > > > Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã'Â
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
> > > > > It's in the Leicester Mercury
> > > > > York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people who work there.
> > > > >
> > > > > Christine
> > > > > Loyaulte me Lie
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

   I suspect Leicester Cathedral [Like Leicester Uni.] was caught off guard by the actual 'Find' 
[Which was 'Amazing' let us admit.] 
I have read their Paper & In the time circumstances have allowed they have done their Best.

  That is to STILL say with 'Good Will' & 'Mutual Respect' some issues remain to be resolved, Hopefully this can be done. [Including the issue of Final location, Leicester/York/Elsewhere.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 7:45
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>
> 
>Obviously ability to absorb increased "footfall" is something that needs to be considered by whichever location receives Richard's remains.
>
>However on the point of burying people in the nearest location, I cannot agree. Whilst the modern practice of repatriation is 'new' for the majority, in the case of Kings of England, it has been quite common for them to be brought from their place of death or original interment to places appropriate to them - Henry I,King John, Henry IV, Richard II, King Stephen, Richard I, and in Richard's lifetime, Henry VI (and also the remains of his father and brother - brought from Pontefract to Fotheringhay). There is good and respected royal precedent in this happening.
>
>We do not bury people locally to where they happen to die; for our own loved ones, we bring them to a place which is appropriate to them, to a place with which they had some meaningful connection or affection. Upon finding lost remains of missing persons or murdered persons, no matter how long ago their decease, we do not insist that they are buried locally to where they were originally laid in the ground, a place with wholly negative associations for the deceased and their family, but we ensure that they are returned to their nearest relatives and to a place with which they were well-connected. Consider any tragic news-story about missing persons and murder cases, and it is evident what would happen should remains be found.
>
>Why would our society believe and practice all this for ourselves and not accord the King of England the same dues? The passage of time makes no difference: in our treatment of the "known" dead, whether long-deceased or not, our society is encouraged and advised (by the national church and by the statutory advisory body to the government on such matters) to take into account the deceased's own life, and possible descendants' wishes. This needs to happen in this situation, and I trust that the Under-Secretary for Justice's intention to gather concerned parties together to resolve some of these issues, will be helpful.
>
>--- In , "Douglas Eugene Stamate" <destama@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> colyngbourne wrote:
>>
>> "Comments from any location - York or Leicester - about tourism are
>> unhelpful and not about the principal issue of "where is it most appropriate
>> to re-inter this king's remains" (and who should have a say). The people
>> petitioning for York are not just from York, or Yorkshire or the north, but
>> from everywhere - well over 25,000 of them (and more, since some don't have
>> access to computers). They are "inferring" (as is advised in the English
>> Heritage doc) Richard's likely preferences. Those preferences are well-known
>> to be "northern" and "York-ish" in nature - the Society itself published
>> articles in the last two years on Richard's close connections with York and
>> the north. It can totally be inferred that Richard "might" have wished
>> York; and it can be wholly understood that he would not have wished St
>> Martin's Church in the (then) town of Leicester to be his burial location.
>> Once the identity of remains are known, these factors are required to come
>> into play regarding the decision-making. The matter of a nation's monarch
>> having a nationally appropriate and fitting place of interment is also a
>> wider public issue that should be taken into account."
>>
>> Doug here:
>> I first want to say that I'm from the US and hold no particular brief for
>> either Leicester or York, both perfectly respectable and suitable sites for
>> a king as best I can tell.
>> I do think any worry about an influx of tourists is something that does need
>> to be considered because wherever Richard III's remains are placed *will*
>> see an increase in tourists. Nor is it merely a matter of whether or not
>> there's "room" in any particular Cathedral; it's also whether that providing
>> that space will force the reduce the ability of the Cathedral to provide a
>> place for worshippers to gather (it's main purpose), as well as serve as a
>> center for other community activities. It's a trade-off between providing a
>> tomb in a setting where those who wish to could pay their respects and still
>> continuing with the life of the Cathedral and community. Not unlike the
>> Middle Ages when one thinks about it.
>> As for inferring where Richard would *want* to be buried there is, in my
>> opinion, no question - Westminster Abbey. Anywhere else would be, at best,
>> where *we* might think he would prefer and that's not subjective at all. For
>> example, although I could fully understand him later looking back at the
>> time spent at York as a sort of Elysium, how do we know how he felt when he
>> was there? Are there any records of Richard's actual thoughts about the time
>> he spent in York? As best I can recall, there aren't (please correct me if
>> I'm mistaken), so what's happening is *we* are presuming that Richard liked
>> being at York, but we don't know that - it may have only been his strong
>> sense of duty, and his brother's wishes, that kept him there.
>> My view is that Richard died near Leicester, it's the nearest town with a
>> Cathedral so, just as with Edward II and Gloucester, there's absolutely no
>> reason *not* to re-inter his remains there. If, for whatever reason, the
>> authorities at Leicester Cathedral feel they can't properly honor him and,
>> as repatriating the bodies of fallen soldiers is a relatively new standard,
>> has any consideration been given to a tomb at/near where Richard died?
>> Something along the lines of two crossed gothic arches with Richard's coffin
>> inside a stone tomb? I have no idea whether or not such a thing would even
>> be feasible, but it seems to *me* that it would be both fitting and unique.
>> Just, please, hide the "car park"! I'd imagine Richard's had enough of
>> *that*...
>> Doug
>>
>
>
>
>
>

It was on Tuesday at 11am in Westminster Hall we were notified of it by the Society. I've killed the post now but the link will be there.



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:41
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

 

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury

> I do think the debate was more important than some seem to think.

When exactly was this debate and what was the programme about it called? I
don't think it was shown in Scotland - I certainly didn't see any listing
for it - but presumably it's available on iPlayer.

As someone who lives in Leicester, just 10 minutes' walk from the Cathedral I was very proud of the prospect of King Richard being interred here. It's probably the best thing to happen to this city and it makes me seethe at the thought of Leicester Cathedrals attitude towards hosting the King. They should be ashamed of themselves, I really can't remotely contemplate their thought process on it - they should be gushing with enthusiasm - you know like the rest of Leicester!
I sincerely hope that they're action don't lose him to York or somewhere else, I think that would be devastating (for me - not you if you live in York). And for saying that the Richard III Society raised the funds for the tomb anyway so the Cathedral doesn't even have to dip into its own pocket. Ho God I'm so angry!!

This is so disappointing. We do have some time, and at least in the US, if a "big political player" says change it, quite often, despite other plans and work, by golly it is changed.

On Mar 13, 2013, at 5:27 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



A.J.,
There are Still companies or individuals that design & make 'Monumental Brasses',
No Doubt the 'Monumental Brass Society would advise here. [Their Website is interesting.]

Whilst I favour the idea of a 'Table Top' Tomb, I can understand the Cathedral at Leicester [NOT my choice] wanting a 'Slab' as this would from their point of view fit in better with modern services.

I think the offer of a 'Place of Honour' in front of the Chancel seems very fair, but then in days of
'Yore' a 'Chapel/Chantry Chapel' would have been on offer for a King.

His 'Adversaries' Henry VII has of course the magnificent tomb by William Torel in the Henry VII Chapel in Westminster Abbey, Whilst The Earl of Derby [Lord Stanley.] has an Alabaster Effigy in Ormskirk Church's 'Derby Chapel, near to my home.

I understand Henry VII paid for a slab originally, though I am unaware of the form this took.

I have living near me a young 'Sculptor' Thompson Dagnall http://www.thompsondagnall.co.uk/list%20of%20works.htm

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...<mailto:ajhibbard%40gmail.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:58
>Subject: Re: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>
>Hi Arthur - thanks for your suggestion - I like it, if indeed the memorial
>must be a slab. Do you have any other avenues to push this idea? -
>contacts with people who make modern brasses & might be nudged in the
>direction of the "design brief." Based on comments posted here (which lead
>me to thoughts that shouldn't be expressed in polite company) I haven't
had
>the heart to actually read the document, but I suppose it is, more or less,
>a request for proposals that meet the design brief???
>
>A J
>
>On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Arthurian <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com>>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> If possession of the remains & burial at Leicester with a 'Slab' does
>> indeed turn out to happen,
>> I would again urge consideration be given to a 'Monumental Brass'.
>>
>> This could be made to fit into a 'slab' but would be much, much, more
>> than Just a 'Slab'.
>>
>> As I said in an earlier 'Rant' this would be the 'Only Example' of a
>> 'King of England' in Brass.
>>
>> Those who want the 'Boar' to be in the proposed Monument, Could, I would
>> suggest, have Richard's feet 'Resting on a figure of a 'Boar' as is the
>> case in
many monuments of the day.
>> [Figures have their feet rest on Dogs, Lions, Grassy Mounds etc.]
>>
>> As a personal view I would favour a 'Family Type' Tomb/Brass with his
>> wife Anne in figure form, Included, Lying next to him. If wished a small
>> figure of their son could also be added underneath.
>> The Brass could include coloured enamels.
>>
>> Figure Brasses of the Era are usually shown with 'Hands Clasped In
>> Prayer' however a rarer example might be to emulate having the couple 'Hold
>> Hands'
>> [A very attractive example of this is to be found in the Brass of Sir
>> Robert Del Bothe or Booth from Wilmslow, Cheshire]
>>
>> Incidentally No Other examples of a 'King' Survive in Brass in England.
>> King Robert the Bruce is the only example in Scotland.
>>
>> I would certainly contribute to such a project. Many of his
>>
'Contemporaries' are thus commemorated.
>>
>> See: http://www.mbs-brasses.co.uk/page78.html#Wydevyl
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>>
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>
>> christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>>
>> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >Sent: Tuesday, 12 March 2013, 10:48
>> >Subject: Richard's tomb Leicester Mercury
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Hello, Have you seen the latest from Leicester Cathedral, they don't want
>> the tomb it's too big, they want a slab, for God's sake.
>> >It's in the Leicester Mercury
>>
>York has plenty of room I was told so last time I visited by the people
>> who work there.
>> >
>> >Christine
>> >Loyaulte me Lie
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>