Design Brief

here it is
 
 
 
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf

Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
 
 
 "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry's army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized  perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "

From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
Subject: Design Brief

 
here it is
 
 
 
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf

Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
 
Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
 "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance  and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty  it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
 
didn't every King of England do the same?
 
Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
 
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
 
 
 "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry's army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized  perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "

From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
Subject: Design Brief

 
here it is
 
 
 
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf






 

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>  
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
>  
> didn't every King of England do the same?
>  


Indeed, that part is... puzzling.

So basically, they're saying: 'Richard was a King, but he was also a human being'? How exactly does this astounding revelation enter the debate?

I hated that entire 'Avoiding pastiche' section. So it must be 'a place of simple dignity' that mustn't 'assume disproportionate significance in a modest building' nor 'restrict the capacity of the building on major occasions' (such as vintage fairs, one presumes). In other words, Richard mustn't take up too much room or be too consipicuous, and obviously he only deserves 'simple dignity' and shouldn't be honoured too much because he was someone who 'demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings'.

I'm sorry but this makes me disproportionately angry.

And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> >  
> > Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
> >  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
> >  
> > didn't every King of England do the same?
> >  
>
>
> Indeed, that part is... puzzling.
>
> So basically, they're saying: 'Richard was a King, but he was also a human being'? How exactly does this astounding revelation enter the debate?
>
> I hated that entire 'Avoiding pastiche' section. So it must be 'a place of simple dignity' that mustn't 'assume disproportionate significance in a modest building' nor 'restrict the capacity of the building on major occasions' (such as vintage fairs, one presumes). In other words, Richard mustn't take up too much room or be too consipicuous, and obviously he only deserves 'simple dignity' and shouldn't be honoured too much because he was someone who 'demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings'.
>
> I'm sorry but this makes me disproportionately angry.
>

Please tell me - is my current annoyance colouring my perceptions, or does the text of that brief very much sound like: 'Well, we've obviously decided he's going to be buried here and that's final, but we don't really think he deserves to be honoured in any way, so we'll just have him around as a suitably inconspicuous part of the furniture'?

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.
>

But it goes so nicely with the themes of 'sin and redemption', doesn't it?

And what is all that rubbish about him being demoralised because he saw his former supporters fighting for Tudor?  No mention of Norfolk's death  leaing to desperate measures.
 
Idiots.

From: mairemulholland <mairemulholland@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:46
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> >  
> > Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
> >  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
> >  
> > didn't every King of England do the same?
> >  
>
>
> Indeed, that part is... puzzling.
>
> So basically, they're saying: 'Richard was a King, but he was also a human being'? How exactly does this astounding revelation enter the debate?
>
> I hated that entire 'Avoiding pastiche' section. So it must be 'a place of simple dignity' that mustn't 'assume disproportionate significance in a modest building' nor 'restrict the capacity of the building on major occasions' (such as vintage fairs, one presumes). In other words, Richard mustn't take up too much room or be too consipicuous, and obviously he only deserves 'simple dignity' and shouldn't be honoured too much because he was someone who 'demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings'.
>
> I'm sorry but this makes me disproportionately angry.
>

No it's not just you.  I have been a definite supporter of Leicester up until this but not now.
 
 

From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:47
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
Please tell me - is my current annoyance colouring my perceptions, or does the text of that brief very much sound like: 'Well, we've obviously decided he's going to be buried here and that's final, but we don't really think he deserves to be honoured in any way, so we'll just have him around as a suitably inconspicuous part of the furniture'?

And so it has mine. I read that as well. Do we really want him with people who say things like that? Did no-one advise them before they said these things?



________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:05
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
 
Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
 "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance  and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty  it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
 
didn't every King of England do the same?
 
Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
 
From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
 
 
 "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry's army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized  perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "

From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
Subject: Design Brief

 
here it is
 
 
 
http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf





 

Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like bad reviews.

Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??) Maire.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> >
> > And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.
> >
>
> But it goes so nicely with the themes of 'sin and redemption', doesn't it?
>

I sent the following email to Mayor of Leicester at themayor@...
----------------------------------

Subject: Richard III tomb - give him a tomb not a ledger stone

Mr. Mayor,

The announcement of a ledger stone for Richard III's tomb is most
disappointing. If Leicester doesn't want to provide a proper burial for Richard III then please allow York to have him.

Richard III will bring additional tourist revenue to the city and the
cathedral. Some of that money may even help the cathedral to "renovate its gardens and remodel the building's interior". The decision to reject a paid for tomb by Richard III society for the dead king whose remains will bring such revenue to the city and cathedral seems shameful and spiteful.

Richard III's corpse was desecrated after his death on the battle field, hastily buried, lost and neglected for 500 years, now found and is making careers and money for many, please have some consideration and do right by his battered bones, and give him a decent tomb and reburial.

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




--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> And so it has mine. I read that as well. Do we really want him with people who say things like that? Did no-one advise them before they said these things?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:05
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>  
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
>  
> didn't every King of England do the same?
>  
> Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
>  
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>  
> Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
>  
>  
>  "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry’s army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized â€" perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> Subject: Design Brief
>
>  
> here it is
>  
>  
>  
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Please tell me - is my current annoyance colouring my perceptions, or
does the text of that brief very much sound like: 'Well, we've obviously
decided he's going to be buried here and that's final, but we don't really
think he deserves to be honoured in any way, so we'll just have him around
as a suitably inconspicuous part of the furniture'?

That's probably overstating it slightly but they certaoinly don't want him
to be honoured *very much*, or to become a cult figure, so they don't
actually want the tourism his burial there would bring.

From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> And what is all that rubbish about him being demoralised because he saw
> his former supporters fighting for Tudor? No mention of Norfolk's death
> leaing to desperate measures.

And if they mean the Stanleys, they didn't overtly switch sides until
*after* the charge started.

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader
> of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like
> bad reviews.

> Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy
> review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??)
> Maire.

It's starting to look as though the tombstone commissioned by Henry - which
had a carved effigy of Richard and praised him as a true king - was
*better*.

Oh, the irony! Maire.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: mairemulholland
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader
> > of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like
> > bad reviews.
>
> > Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy
> > review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??)
> > Maire.
>
> It's starting to look as though the tombstone commissioned by Henry - which
> had a carved effigy of Richard and praised him as a true king - was
> *better*.
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> That's probably overstating it slightly but they certaoinly don't want him
> to be honoured *very much*, or to become a cult figure, so they don't
> actually want the tourism his burial there would bring.
>

Indeed. And if they don't really want the tourism either, why exactly do they want him at all?

On re-reading the text, I still get the impression they're not even remotely interested in honouring him as a King. 'Simple dignity', yes - but not honour.

I'd like my own eventual burial to be a matter of 'simple dignity' as well, but the last I looked, I'm not an important historical figure or a former Queen of England.

I agree&&. I felt a little miffed, and then I got really miffed. This is not just someone found, this is a King of England, and I simply do not understand why he cannot be awarded the ceremony and honor of a burial, like the other Kings and Queens. I don't care where, but someone did mention the consideration of security.

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of liz williams
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 8:57 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



No it's not just you. I have been a definite supporter of Leicester up until this but not now.



From: pansydobersby <[email protected]<mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:47
Subject: Re: Design Brief


Please tell me - is my current annoyance colouring my perceptions, or does the text of that brief very much sound like: 'Well, we've obviously decided he's going to be buried here and that's final, but we don't really think he deserves to be honoured in any way, so we'll just have him around as a suitably inconspicuous part of the furniture'?

Do they never learn? We had Dr Appleby with her mattock and hunchback and now we have some academic/cleric making Shakespearean statements. For gawd sake couldn't Downing Street have offered to lend them a spin doctor?
 
It is sad though, because what should have been a last chance to pay tribute to a king who died in battle defending his throne is now about to become a fiasco. I welcome the fact that York is going to put on some celebrations whether they get him or not. He was indeed wise in his choice of friends.
 

________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:28
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

From: mairemulholland
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader
> of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like
> bad reviews.

> Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy
> review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??)
> Maire.

It's starting to look as though the tombstone commissioned by Henry - which
had a carved effigy of Richard and praised him as a true king - was
*better*.

BRAVO&&I like it!


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of hli4
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



I sent the following email to Mayor of Leicester at themayor@...<mailto:themayor%40leicester.gov.uk>
----------------------------------

Subject: Richard III tomb - give him a tomb not a ledger stone

Mr. Mayor,

The announcement of a ledger stone for Richard III's tomb is most
disappointing. If Leicester doesn't want to provide a proper burial for Richard III then please allow York to have him.

Richard III will bring additional tourist revenue to the city and the
cathedral. Some of that money may even help the cathedral to "renovate its gardens and remodel the building's interior". The decision to reject a paid for tomb by Richard III society for the dead king whose remains will bring such revenue to the city and cathedral seems shameful and spiteful.

Richard III's corpse was desecrated after his death on the battle field, hastily buried, lost and neglected for 500 years, now found and is making careers and money for many, please have some consideration and do right by his battered bones, and give him a decent tomb and reburial.

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

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
> And so it has mine. I read that as well. Do we really want him with people who say things like that? Did no-one advise them before they said these things?
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>>
> To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:05
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> Â
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> Â
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
> Â
> didn't every King of England do the same?
> Â
> Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
> Â
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> Â
> Who wrote this sh**?? (My emphasis)
> Â
> Â
>  <mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com%3e%20%0b%3e%20Sent:%20Wednesday,%2013%20March%202013,%2013:02%0b%3e%20Subject:%20Re:%20[Richard%20III%20Society%20Forum]%20Design%20Brief%0b%3e%20%0b%3e%20 %20%0b%3e%20Who%20wrote%20this %20sh**?? %20(My%20emphasis)%0b%3e%20 %0b%3e%20 %0b%3e%20 > "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henryâ¬"s army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized â¬" perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> Subject: Design Brief
>
> Â
> here it is
> Â
> Â
> Â
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

A very low-key but cogent letter.
It is interesting to me that Leicester Cathedral doesn't want the hubbub and crowds Richard's Tomb might bring, but a Flea Market in the nave seems to be OK. Didn't Jesus chase the money-changers from the Remple"

L.M.L.,
Janet T.

--- In , "hli4" <hli4@...> wrote:
>
> I sent the following email to Mayor of Leicester at themayor@...
> ----------------------------------
>
> Subject: Richard III tomb - give him a tomb not a ledger stone
>
> Mr. Mayor,
>
> The announcement of a ledger stone for Richard III's tomb is most
> disappointing. If Leicester doesn't want to provide a proper burial for Richard III then please allow York to have him.
>
> Richard III will bring additional tourist revenue to the city and the
> cathedral. Some of that money may even help the cathedral to "renovate its gardens and remodel the building's interior". The decision to reject a paid for tomb by Richard III society for the dead king whose remains will bring such revenue to the city and cathedral seems shameful and spiteful.
>
> Richard III's corpse was desecrated after his death on the battle field, hastily buried, lost and neglected for 500 years, now found and is making careers and money for many, please have some consideration and do right by his battered bones, and give him a decent tomb and reburial.
>
> --------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > And so it has mine. I read that as well. Do we really want him with people who say things like that? Did no-one advise them before they said these things?
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > To: "" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:05
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> > Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> >  
> > Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
> >  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
> >  
> > didn't every King of England do the same?
> >  
> > Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
> >  
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >  
> > Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
> >  
> >  
> >  "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> > The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry’s army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized â€" perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
> >
> > From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> > To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> > Subject: Design Brief
> >
> >  
> > here it is
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> On re-reading the text, I still get the impression they're not even
> remotely interested in honouring him as a King. 'Simple dignity', yes -
> but not honour.

Leicester is a redbrick university with truly hideous 1960s buildings (which
won a prize, God knows why), so they probably don't approve of honouring
royalty at all.

liz williams wrote:
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.

Carol responds:

Try using asterisks, like so:
>  
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."

Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.

I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.

As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.

It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.

It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).

As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's
> tomb in a side building with its own garden?

Good idea, and then they could make the garden a war-memorial to all the
dead of Bosworth, and we know for sure that *that* would please Richard.
People could leave poppies there on Remembrance Sunday, or on 22 August.

Maire wrote:
>
> And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.

Carol responds:

To be fair, the writer did concede that the boys' fate is a mystery, but the part about "honourable and dishonourable actions" and losing heart at Bosworth (as if the whole kingdom had turned against him!) does suggest that he or she needs some tutoring. A good dose of Richard's legislation, a few of his letters, the expression of grief at his death by the City of York, and a modern assessment of "those bones" seems in order. They need to know whom they're honoring. Maybe they should talk with some prelates who grew up in York? Or maybe York, on reading this statement, will make a stronger argument that the remains belong there--even though Richard did *not* state that he wanted to be buried there and probably would have expected to be buried along with his wife at Westminster once he became king.

As Penman has Richard say in "Sunne in Splendour," "How came we to this?"

Carol

What a strange thing to say...is it necessary...? I dont think so. It leaves me wondering that they believe that Richard was guilty of some of the crimes attributed to him...?

"it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."

If Leicester Cathedral does not have the space..and it was originally a parish church...then that is the end of it. Richard cannot be buried there. That is clear. Although I am not understanding why they think the tomb design of the Society is not suitable because it would not take up more floor space than a slab would...because surely they are not going to let people walk over it?

To those who want Richard buried in York Minster....I get the impression that York Minster do not want him? Comments please?

Tewkesbury has been suggested....I love Tewkesbury...and has relatives of his wife buried there....although it would appear that George and Isobel's remains have gone missing.

This really is deplorable....Thank God time is on our side...and we may yet...only may...still be able to sway the authorities whoever and wherever they may be to listen to the multitude of people who want Richard to have a reburial in keeping with his status. This is a one off and surely it has to be got right...Eileenb
>

No, my original emphasis was on the bit about Richard getting disheartened because he saw all his former supporters fighting for Tudor.
then I read more and sent the second e mail.
 
 
 

From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
liz williams wrote:
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.

Carol responds:

Try using asterisks, like so:
>  
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."

Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.

I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.

As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.

It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.

It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).

As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).

Carol

*applauds Pansy*

Well said.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > That's probably overstating it slightly but they certaoinly don't want him
> > to be honoured *very much*, or to become a cult figure, so they don't
> > actually want the tourism his burial there would bring.
> >
>
> Indeed. And if they don't really want the tourism either, why exactly do they want him at all?
>
> On re-reading the text, I still get the impression they're not even remotely interested in honouring him as a King. 'Simple dignity', yes - but not honour.
>
> I'd like my own eventual burial to be a matter of 'simple dignity' as well, but the last I looked, I'm not an important historical figure or a former Queen of England.
>

--- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
>
> Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like bad reviews.
>
> Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??) Maire.

Carol responds:

I'm sure that I've said this at least ten times on this forum, but I'll repeat it again. The short answer is no because we don't know the hour of his birth.

Despite Rous's saying that he was born with Scorpio rising, he got Richard's birth date wrong and therefore could not have had access to Richard's astrological chart. He was merely trying to incorporate scorpion imagery to go with his depiction of Richard as the anti-Christ. William of Worcester, who provides the time of birth for some of Richard's brothers and sisters (though he makes some identifiable errors and therefore can't be fully trusted) gives Richard's birth date but not the time of birth.

So even if we believe in astrological charts (which I don't), it's impossible to construct one for Richard. (Edward, maybe--you can find William of Worcester on Google Books if you have the time and patience.)

Carol

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> the expression of grief at his death by the City of York,

Yes. If his tomb has any sort of epitaph, other than his name and dates, it
should be "Late mercifully reigning over us".

Claire wrote:

> And if they mean the Stanleys, they didn't overtly switch sides until *after* the charge started.
>
Carol responds:

And even then, it was only Sir William who overtly switched sides and helped bring Richard down. Lord Stanley stayed where he was on the sidelines. And, as you imply, his treachery had nothing to do with Richard's charge.

Carol

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> What a strange thing to say...is it necessary...? I dont think so. It
> leaves me wondering that they believe that Richard was guilty of some of
> the crimes attributed to him...?

That was my impression, otherwise it's a redundant statement, because it's
true of everybody not an outright saint.

> Although I am not understanding why they think the tomb design of the
> Society is not suitable because it would not take up more floor space than
> a slab would...because surely they are not going to let people walk over
> it?

They should recess it into an alcove then, so people can stand in front of
it but it doesn't protrude into the walkway.

We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him. I spent my career working in the inner city in another big city not too far away and I can see where they're coming from. Had he 're-surfaced' in Worcester, Gloucester, Warwick or any other sort of county town it would have been different. I don't think educating them will make any difference, it's not their key concern. I note the Leicester Mercury is saying that £14 million is likely to be generated from tourist revenue though; and people will be unfortunately drawn to see the notorious as well as the good.
I think it's going to be more and more difficult for this to be conducted with dignity, and for what it's worth, York seem to be striking a better note. I find it sad that the Leicester Cathedral authorities have not been advised on how contentious this can be and offered some advice on making public statements. All very sad. H


________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 16:05
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

Maire wrote:
>
> And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.

Carol responds:

To be fair, the writer did concede that the boys' fate is a mystery, but the part about "honourable and dishonourable actions" and losing heart at Bosworth (as if the whole kingdom had turned against him!) does suggest that he or she needs some tutoring. A good dose of Richard's legislation, a few of his letters, the expression of grief at his death by the City of York, and a modern assessment of "those bones" seems in order. They need to know whom they're honoring. Maybe they should talk with some prelates who grew up in York? Or maybe York, on reading this statement, will make a stronger argument that the remains belong there--even though Richard did *not* state that he wanted to be buried there and probably would have expected to be buried along with his wife at Westminster once he became king.

As Penman has Richard say in "Sunne in Splendour," "How came we to this?"

Carol

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Although I am not understanding why they think the tomb design of the Society is not suitable because it would not take up more floor space than a slab would...because surely they are not going to let people walk over it?
>


I think that is indeed what they're planning. But even if they aren't, the argument against the tomb is probably that it would be the kind of memorial which would (quoting from the brief) 'assume disproportionate significance in a modest building'.

Right after that comes the strange paragraph about 'dishonourable characteristics' and 'sin and redemption', so it's at the very least strongly implied that, because of Richard's controversial status, they consider him deserving of 'simple dignity' but nothing more.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.

Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
place.

If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.

For what it's worth, I also think he should go elsewhere and, not unlike you, I've even thought the church at Dadlington, where some of the soldiers from the battle are buried, would be better han a half-hearted Leicester. After all, Churchill was happy with Bladon and most parish churches are now kept locked unless someone is there.  



________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 16:42
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

From: Hilary Jones
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.

Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
place.

If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> I agree. I felt a little miffed, and then I got really miffed. This is not just someone found, this is a King of England, and I simply do not understand why he cannot be awarded the ceremony and honor of a burial, like the other Kings and Queens. I don't care where, but someone did mention the consideration of security.

Carol responds:

The question of a ceremony and honorable reburial is not at stake. That has been agreed upon by all parties. The only questions still being debated (other than whether Leicester U. should display his bones) are the nature of the memorial (tomb or slab) and its location (Leicester Cathedral, York, or some other "appropriate location"). It's just a shame that the cathedral didn't express its concerns about not having space for a tomb *before* the R III Society commissioned its design and solicited contributions.

Too bad we can't bring Richard back and put him in charge of his own reburial. He would know how to do it right.

Carol

Philippa commissioned the tomb design in 2010, before Richard was found and I doubt whether she consulted the Cathedral at that time.

One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be possible with a table tomb.


________________________________
 justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:

The question of a ceremony and honorable reburial is not at stake. That has been agreed upon by all parties. The only questions still being debated (other than whether Leicester U. should display his bones) are the nature of the memorial (tomb or slab) and its location (Leicester Cathedral, York, or some other "appropriate location"). It's just a shame that the cathedral didn't express its concerns about not having space for a tomb *before* the R III Society commissioned its design and solicited contributions.

Too bad we can't bring Richard back and put him in charge of his own reburial. He would know how to do it right.

Carol

I havent really got that much involved before in the posts about *where* he Richard should be buried and I took the line that well, if Leicester were offering and York were not then let Leicester have him. After all this I feel strongly now that Leicester is not the right/appropriate place. I now believe they are simply not up to it. Of course this does not change the fact that York Minster still has not made any advances to imply that they are interested in offering Richard a burial place. This really is beyond belief. The buildings are there but the people in authority in my opinion leave a lot to be desired...I am not 'panicking' but Im extremely worried now..Anyone who has had to battle against red tape in this country will surely understand my misgivings. Now is not the time to be complacent because believe you me there is a real and strong possibility that *they* will re-bury Richard without a thought as to how the vast majority think or hope he should be buried. Yes they will give it the old' talk the talk' but at the heart of it I dont think they have a bloody clue..and I think they care less. .They have probably taken all that they know about Richard from Shakespeare. We really are in a right pickle here..no mistake about it...Eileenb

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Hilary Jones
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> > We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> > past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> > of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> > whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.
>
> Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
> they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
> as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
> should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
> and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
> place.
>
> If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
> Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
> it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
> visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.
>

From: Pamela Furmidge
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design
> brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the
> most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be
> possible with a table tomb.

Now that *is* a good point, but I'd be happier about it if the tenor of the
brief wasn't so limp and unenthused.

Both good points......Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design
> > brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the
> > most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be
> > possible with a table tomb.
>
> Now that *is* a good point, but I'd be happier about it if the tenor of the
> brief wasn't so limp and unenthused.
>

Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed. 

  A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family, 
Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.

An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost. 

Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised. 
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:28
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>From: mairemulholland
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 2:41 PM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> Part of me has to laugh at this because as a theatre person and a reader
>> of the New York Times, I always notice that most obits of actors read like
>> bad reviews.
>
>> Richard must be the first king in history to - perhaps - get a lousy
>> review on his tombstone. (Has anyone ever done his astrological chart??)
>> Maire.
>
>It's starting to look as though the tombstone commissioned by Henry - which
>had a carved effigy of Richard and praised him as a true king - was
>*better*.
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design
> > brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the
> > most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be
> > possible with a table tomb.
>
> Now that *is* a good point, but I'd be happier about it if the tenor of the
> brief wasn't so limp and unenthused.
>

That's it, isn't it. Interesting article here, most of you have probably seen it already:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9927564/Cathedral-criticised-for-being-out-of-touch-over-King-Richard-IIIs-resting-place.html

Makes the Dean sound more sympathetic, but I can't help but feel that's just a whole lot of explaining and sweetening the pill. If they really mean all that about 'love and respect' and 'honouring his name' and 'a sense of awe and wonder' (with lighting? really?), why was none of it present in the brief? Why was there such an unpleasant tone and the strange paragraph about Richard's supposed character flaws instead?

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed. 
>
>   A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family, 
> Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.
>
> An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost. 
>
> Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised. 
>


If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
> >
> > Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed. 
> >
> >   A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family, 
> > Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.
> >
> > An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost. 
> >
> > Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised. 
> >
>
>
> If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)
>

Correction (or addition?): I actually love the idea of a brass whether or not there's a slab or a tomb or anything else. I like it better than the idea of an effigy, as an effigy is so difficult to do well, even at high cost.

How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?

Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.

The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
[His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>liz williams wrote:
>>
>> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Try using asterisks, like so:
>>  
>>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>
>Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>
>I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>
>As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>
>It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>
>It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>
>As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your
> idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered
> as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be
> quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)

It wouldn't have to be a pastiche, though - it would be an interesting
opportunity to create a momument of this kind in a modern artistic style, so
long as that didn't involve him ending up with both eyes on the same side of
his face like a flounder.

Oh that is an absolutely fabulous idea.....what could be more fitting. I was thinking about the funeral for Princess Diana, and all the elaborate planning, even though a simple ceremony. Her resting place befits her. Bosworth Field would be wonderful, and yes, I think King Richard III would be very happily reunited to those who fought for and died with him.


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Claire M Jordan
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 11:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



From: justcarol67
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's
> tomb in a side building with its own garden?

Good idea, and then they could make the garden a war-memorial to all the
dead of Bosworth, and we know for sure that *that* would please Richard.
People could leave poppies there on Remembrance Sunday, or on 22 August.

'Monumental Brasses' never really 'Ceased' to be commissioned as monuments to the great & the good.

Bishops & Deans especially were using these during the 'Gothic revival' period under Victoria to use these as monuments.

The odd one is still found to authors & etc.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 18:17
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed. 
>>
>>   A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family, 
>> Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.
>>
>> An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost. 
>>
>> Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised. 
>>
>
>If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)
>
>
>
>
>

Certainly the ability to produce effigies is difficult. Though some excellent artist's still exist.
I recently saw some new stuff by a guy called Thompson Dagnall around the 'Tolpuddle Martyrs'.

These effigies could not sit before the High Altar, not least because of space.

The tomb of King John [Not noted for his good works] is in Worcester in effigy form, surrounded by Angels & Saints, ignoring the fact that, at one point, he considered turning the country to Islam.
[Little known fact.] 

Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 18:20
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed. 
>> >
>> >   A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family, 
>> > Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.
>> >
>> > An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost. 
>> >
>> > Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised. 
>> >
>>
>>
>> If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)
>>
>
>Correction (or addition?): I actually love the idea of a brass whether or not there's a slab or a tomb or anything else. I like it better than the idea of an effigy, as an effigy is so difficult to do well, even at high cost.
>
>
>
>
>

I said on another forum that Richard would be be buried in red tape. I've seen these situations in America and sometimes what happens is that the remains end up in somebody's filing cabinet or closet. I'm not saying that it could happen in this case, just that it does happen here. Maire.

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I havent really got that much involved before in the posts about *where* he Richard should be buried and I took the line that well, if Leicester were offering and York were not then let Leicester have him. After all this I feel strongly now that Leicester is not the right/appropriate place. I now believe they are simply not up to it. Of course this does not change the fact that York Minster still has not made any advances to imply that they are interested in offering Richard a burial place. This really is beyond belief. The buildings are there but the people in authority in my opinion leave a lot to be desired...I am not 'panicking' but Im extremely worried now..Anyone who has had to battle against red tape in this country will surely understand my misgivings. Now is not the time to be complacent because believe you me there is a real and strong possibility that *they* will re-bury Richard without a thought as to how the vast majority think or hope he should be buried. Yes they will give it the old' talk the talk' but at the heart of it I dont think they have a bloody clue..and I think they care less. .They have probably taken all that they know about Richard from Shakespeare. We really are in a right pickle here..no mistake about it...Eileenb
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > > We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> > > past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> > > of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> > > whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.
> >
> > Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
> > they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
> > as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
> > should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
> > and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
> > place.
> >
> > If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
> > Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
> > it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
> > visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.
> >
>

Another really wonderful idea&& does anyone in the group know our Royal Sponsor?


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?

Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.

The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10,
Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily]
His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions.
[His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>
>liz williams wrote:
>>
>> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Try using asterisks, like so:
>> Â
>>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>
>Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>
>I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>
>As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>
>It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>
>It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>
>As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Where does the present Richard duke of Gloucester stand on all this? He is patron of the Richard111 society after all

Well in my HUMBLE OPINION a monumental brass is not "pastiche"! Jeez, will the powers that be, not recognize this opportunity to finally put King Richard into an honorable position, and with the solemn yet celebratory nature of occasion????

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of pansydobersby
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:18 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Arthurian <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:
>
> Whilst I have already suggested a 'Monumental Brass' to Richard, If an 'Effigy' was possible this could have the advantage of showing him in the 'Flesh' so to speak, in 'Three Dimensions' it could show him in Full Armour and demonstrate he was not Deformed.Â
>
> Â A Brass however might have the virtue of bringing together the entire Royal Family,Â
> Anyone who has visited the Effigies of the Dudley's in Warwick church could not FAIL to be moved.
>
> An effigy has the main disadvantage of cost.Â
>
> Therefore depends on amount that 'Could' be raised.Â
>

If he does end up in Leicester with a 'slab' (sigh), I really like your idea of a monumental brass, Arthur. I hope it will be seriously considered as an option. (Though I rather fear it wouldn't be, as they seem to be quite adamant against 'pastiche'...)

Actually the Society was indeed in talks with the cathedral in 2010 (astonishingly), as evidenced in a letter sent by the Chairman to a concerned Ricardian last week. She was questioning the Society's Exec's seeming acceptance of Leicester, a place singularly inappropriate and unconnected with Richard, other than his death.

--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Philippa commissioned the tomb design in 2010, before Richard was found and I doubt whether she consulted the Cathedral at that time.
>
> One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be possible with a table tomb.
>
>
> ________________________________
>  justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> The question of a ceremony and honorable reburial is not at stake. That has been agreed upon by all parties. The only questions still being debated (other than whether Leicester U. should display his bones) are the nature of the memorial (tomb or slab) and its location (Leicester Cathedral, York, or some other "appropriate location"). It's just a shame that the cathedral didn't express its concerns about not having space for a tomb *before* the R III Society commissioned its design and solicited contributions.
>
> Too bad we can't bring Richard back and put him in charge of his own reburial. He would know how to do it right.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ah...We just do not know what is going on behind the scenes do we...? Eileen

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Actually the Society was indeed in talks with the cathedral in 2010 (astonishingly), as evidenced in a letter sent by the Chairman to a concerned Ricardian last week. She was questioning the Society's Exec's seeming acceptance of Leicester, a place singularly inappropriate and unconnected with Richard, other than his death.
>
> --- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@> wrote:
> >
> > Philippa commissioned the tomb design in 2010, before Richard was found and I doubt whether she consulted the Cathedral at that time.
> >
> > One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be possible with a table tomb.
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  justcarol67 <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > The question of a ceremony and honorable reburial is not at stake. That has been agreed upon by all parties. The only questions still being debated (other than whether Leicester U. should display his bones) are the nature of the memorial (tomb or slab) and its location (Leicester Cathedral, York, or some other "appropriate location"). It's just a shame that the cathedral didn't express its concerns about not having space for a tomb *before* the R III Society commissioned its design and solicited contributions.
> >
> > Too bad we can't bring Richard back and put him in charge of his own reburial. He would know how to do it right.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

pansydobersby wrote:
[snip]
> Makes the Dean sound more sympathetic, but I can't help but feel that's just a whole lot of explaining and sweetening the pill. If they really mean all that about 'love and respect' and 'honouring his name' and 'a sense of awe and wonder' (with lighting? really?), why was none of it present in the brief? Why was there such an unpleasant tone and the strange paragraph about Richard's supposed character flaws instead?

Carol responds:

The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).

Maybe we should all take a deep breath and reread the brief? (My only problem with it is the view of him as sometimes dishonorable and losing heart at Bosworth, but Annette Carson or J A-H can set them straight on that.

Carol

Pansy, I couldn't agree more.  They "could" do something really quite special with the right lighting but it makes it all sound now like a reaction to criticism rather than what they really want.  What has annoyed me is the comment about Richard's character - as if he was more dishonourable than any of them, what about Henry VIII could you get worse than him?  And also the inaccuracy of the reason for his last charge at Bosworth.  They made it sound as if half his army had gone over to the other side!



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 18:15
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Furmidge
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:46 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > One interesting point, if Richard is reburied at Leicester as the design
> > brief indicates, he would be placed directly before the High Altar, the
> > most honourable position in the Cathedral - and one which would not be
> > possible with a table tomb.
>
> Now that *is* a good point, but I'd be happier about it if the tenor of the
> brief wasn't so limp and unenthused.
>

That's it, isn't it. Interesting article here, most of you have probably seen it already:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9927564/Cathedral-criticised-for-being-out-of-touch-over-King-Richard-IIIs-resting-place.html

Makes the Dean sound more sympathetic, but I can't help but feel that's just a whole lot of explaining and sweetening the pill. If they really mean all that about 'love and respect' and 'honouring his name' and 'a sense of awe and wonder' (with lighting? really?), why was none of it present in the brief? Why was there such an unpleasant tone and the strange paragraph about Richard's supposed character flaws instead?

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the
> original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a
> section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the
> colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors,

Just as an aside, anybody know whether the description of Richard's
orioginal tomb as made of different-coloured stone means it was made of
all-different stones, or that it was polychrome (painted)?

Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...

--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>
> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>
> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>
> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>  
> Kind Regards,
>  
> Arthur.
>
>
>
> >________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> >To:
> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > 
> >liz williams wrote:
> >>
> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> >
> >Carol responds:
> >
> >Try using asterisks, like so:
> >>  
> >>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
> >
> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
> >
> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
> >
> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
> >
> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
> >
> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
> >
> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
> >
> >Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>


Still, her son is the Duke of York... ;)

The Majority of Tombs of the Era used Colour, Effigies in Metal or in Alabaster, brasses with Enamels [especially in the Heraldry.]
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:03
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>
>From: justcarol67
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:40 PM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the
>> original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a
>> section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the
>> colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors,
>
>Just as an aside, anybody know whether the description of Richard's
>orioginal tomb as made of different-coloured stone means it was made of
>all-different stones, or that it was polychrome (painted)?
>
>
>
>
>

Ultimately she would need to authorise.

There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.

Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.   
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.



>________________________________
> From: "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>
>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>>
>> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >liz williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>> >> à
>> >> à"While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ââ¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ââ¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>> >
>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>> >
>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>> >
>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>> >
>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>> >
>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
>
> The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
>


Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!

Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)

I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.

As was Edward's and Richard's. It came with Henry IV



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:57
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>

Still, her son is the Duke of York... ;)

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> As was Edward's and Richard's. It came with Henry IV
>


Yes, I realise that - I was just jokingly referring to the Lancaster comment.

She would only reply politely that she has no view.



________________________________
From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:04
Subject: RE: Design Brief

 

Another really wonderful idea&& does anyone in the group know our Royal Sponsor?


From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Arthurian
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:29 PM
To:
Subject: Re: Design Brief



How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?

Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.

The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10,
Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily]
His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions.
[His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...<mailto:justcarol67%40yahoo.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>
>liz williams wrote:
>>
>> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Try using asterisks, like so:
>> Â
>>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>
>Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>
>I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>
>As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>
>It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>
>It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>
>As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Does anyone know what, if any, badge etc. John of Gloucester had? Maybe he didn't at all, but I'd like to know.

Sandra

I doubt it as she was the last Empress of India, but I know what you mean. 



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:17
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

Ultimately she would need to authorise.

There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.

Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.   
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.

>________________________________
> From: "favefauve@...@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>
>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>>
>> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >liz williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>> >> à
>> >> à"While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ââ¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ââ¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>> >
>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>> >
>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>> >
>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>> >
>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>> >
>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Gosh Arthur, at what level of title does one leave the commoner status? Does ROYAL only relate to being born a prince or princess??? But the question still stands, Richard was born into a Royal Family, and was a King at his death. Surely Her Majesty would authorize this burial, especially in such amazing circumstances.

On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



Ultimately she would need to authorise.

There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.

Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

Kind Regards,

Arthur.

I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.

>________________________________
> From: "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>
>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>
>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards asý escorts.
>>
>> Theý Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10,ý
>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily]ý
>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions.ý
>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>> ý
>> Kind Regards,
>> ý
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>> >
>> >
>> >ý
>> >liz williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>> >> ýýý
>> >> ýýý "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ýýýýý" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ýýýýý" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>> >
>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>> >
>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>> >
>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>> >
>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>> >
>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

My church has just done a new lighting scheme - very nice indeed actually - but this is part of a general re-ordering, just like Leicester Cathedral's is intended to be: not part of a "memorial" to Richard at all. And yes, likely to be superseded within a few decades. The cathedral is not offering a location that is fitting with Richard's status as a King of England, nor one that is in any way different to their current memorial. People are right to be outraged and disgusted by the entire brief. The RIII internet is exploding over this out there. An alternative location should be sought, and I feel (as do many) that the Uni/Society ought to begin reconsidering.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> >
>
>
> Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
>
> Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
>
> I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
>

As a great grandson of Queen Victoria, technically Mountbatten wasn't a commoner even though the others were . 
 
However,  I suppose one loses one's commonness once one is married to the King ...


________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:17
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
Ultimately she would need to authorise.

There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.

Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.   
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.

>________________________________
> From: "favefauve@...@...>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>
>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>
>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>
>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>>
>> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>  
>> Kind Regards,
>>  
>> Arthur.
>>
>>
>>
>> >________________________________
>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>> >To:
>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >liz williams wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>> >
>> >Carol responds:
>> >
>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>> >> à
>> >> à"While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ââ¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ââ¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>> >
>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>> >
>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>> >
>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>> >
>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>> >
>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>> >
>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>> >
>> >Carol
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

I would like to ask the person who wrote that, what evidence do you have? If they don't want him why don't they say. Sounds to me as if they have been reading some of the unresearched rubbish that passes for history these days.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>  
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
>  
> didn't every King of England do the same?
>  
> Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
>  
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>  
> Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
>  
>  
>  "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry’s army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized â€" perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> Subject: Design Brief
>
>  
> here it is
>  
>  
>  
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>

This has just turned up on the Beeb - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21768730

What I cannot understand and what has made me cross is why didnt Leicester Cathedral make it known that the design put forward by the Society was not suitable when the design was first made public some time ago...To let us now know after this lapse of time is extremely disappointing....This is what has probably made the situation much worse...It has not been handled well by the Cathedral. I cannot understand it at all and it really is not on...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> This has just turned up on the Beeb - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21768730
>
>
>

You are probably 'Right' [She was a 'Commoner' when she married, despite her Scottish 'Lineage'.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:24
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>I doubt it as she was the last Empress of India, but I know what you mean. 
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:17
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> 
>
>Ultimately she would need to authorise.
>
>There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.
>
>Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.   
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "favefauve@...@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>> 
>>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>>
>>--- In , Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>>
>>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>>>
>>> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10, 
>>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily] 
>>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions. 
>>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>>  
>>> Kind Regards,
>>>  
>>> Arthur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >________________________________
>>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>>> >To:
>>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > 
>>> >liz williams wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>>> >
>>> >Carol responds:
>>> >
>>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>>> >> à
>>> >> à"While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ââ¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ââ¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>>> >
>>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>>> >
>>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>>> >
>>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>>> >
>>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>>> >
>>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>>> >
>>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>>> >
>>> >Carol
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

What has " honorable and dishonorable" things have to do with anything? H8 seems to be most dishonorable of all but he gets a tomb! Why do people hate Richard so?!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:05 AM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
> "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance  and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty  it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
>
> didn't every King of England do the same?
>
> Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
>
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: ">
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> Who wrote this sh**?? (My emphasis)
>
>
> "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry's army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized  perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> Subject: Design Brief
>
>
> here it is
>
>
>
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pansy, me too.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:27 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
> > Â
> > Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
> >  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
> > Â
> > didn't every King of England do the same?
> >
>
> Indeed, that part is... puzzling.
>
> So basically, they're saying: 'Richard was a King, but he was also a human being'? How exactly does this astounding revelation enter the debate?
>
> I hated that entire 'Avoiding pastiche' section. So it must be 'a place of simple dignity' that mustn't 'assume disproportionate significance in a modest building' nor 'restrict the capacity of the building on major occasions' (such as vintage fairs, one presumes). In other words, Richard mustn't take up too much room or be too consipicuous, and obviously he only deserves 'simple dignity' and shouldn't be honoured too much because he was someone who 'demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings'.
>
> I'm sorry but this makes me disproportionately angry.
>
>

Yes. And as now we have " evidence" that he killed the boys since he went on a pilgrimage, lets shove him in a corner so the flea market can go on........

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:48 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@...> wrote:
> >
> > And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.
> >
>
> But it goes so nicely with the themes of 'sin and redemption', doesn't it?
>
>

Then why won't they let York have him?!! What's wrong with people?

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 11:21 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
> From: pansydobersby
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > Please tell me - is my current annoyance colouring my perceptions, or
> does the text of that brief very much sound like: 'Well, we've obviously
> decided he's going to be buried here and that's final, but we don't really
> think he deserves to be honoured in any way, so we'll just have him around
> as a suitably inconspicuous part of the furniture'?
>
> That's probably overstating it slightly but they certaoinly don't want him
> to be honoured *very much*, or to become a cult figure, so they don't
> actually want the tourism his burial there would bring.
>
>

From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Pansy, me too.

I wouldn't say it made me disproportionately angry, but it certainly makes
me proportionately annoyed. If that's their attitude what the hell do they
want him for? Or is it that the cathedral *doesn't* want him but is being
bullied into taking him by the council?

I wish we *could* send him to Sutton Cheney - a lovely airy little church
which handles its Ricardian associations gracefully, and has embroidered
murray-et-azure kneelers donated by the Society.

If the tourist dollar comes in and Leicester gets an economic boost why are they insisting on a * *modest* grave? Don't they want to make the place as interesting as they can? If they don't want him because of his " honorable and his honorable deeds" they hold have been upfront about inform the beginning. Makes very little sense. York is not enthusiastic about getting him. Leicester being demure. What are they all afraid of?!!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:39 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:18 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > Pansy, me too.
>
> I wouldn't say it made me disproportionately angry, but it certainly makes
> me proportionately annoyed. If that's their attitude what the hell do they
> want him for? Or is it that the cathedral *doesn't* want him but is being
> bullied into taking him by the council?
>
> I wish we *could* send him to Sutton Cheney - a lovely airy little church
> which handles its Ricardian associations gracefully, and has embroidered
> murray-et-azure kneelers donated by the Society.
>
>

Gosh! The iPad auto correct has really mangled up that post. I wanted to write " they should have been upfront about it"!!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:

> If the tourist dollar comes in and Leicester gets an economic boost why are they insisting on a * *modest* grave? Don't they want to make the place as interesting as they can? If they don't want him because of his " honorable and his honorable deeds" they hold have been upfront about inform the beginning. Makes very little sense. York is not enthusiastic about getting him. Leicester being demure. What are they all afraid of?!!!
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:39 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Ishita Bandyo
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:18 AM
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> > > Pansy, me too.
> >
> > I wouldn't say it made me disproportionately angry, but it certainly makes
> > me proportionately annoyed. If that's their attitude what the hell do they
> > want him for? Or is it that the cathedral *doesn't* want him but is being
> > bullied into taking him by the council?
> >
> > I wish we *could* send him to Sutton Cheney - a lovely airy little church
> > which handles its Ricardian associations gracefully, and has embroidered
> > murray-et-azure kneelers donated by the Society.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

"So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"

"Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"

As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".

What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> >
>
>
> Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
>
> Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
>
> I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
>

Btw, have you guys seen this article: http://m.thisissouthwales.co.uk/story.html?aid=18199116
I really really want to throw up! They want to make money of the Rhys guy who is apparently "the man" who killed the king! How the heck do they know that?!!!!
How sad is it that even this " truly dishonorable" man gets a tomb with effigy and all whereas a good king is swiped under a slab.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:

> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>
> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>
> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>
> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >
> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >
> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >
>
>

Many of these individuals are/certainly were at the time of their marriage [Di & Queen Mum 'Commoners' ] 
   I was surprised to learn that Members of the 'Aristocracy' are 'Commoners' .

  I was NOT implying Richard was. [Diana of course had her HRH revoked., The Duchess of Windsor Never had it Granted, despite her marriage to a former king]

Bit strange 'Royal status'
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur Wright.



>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:25
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>Gosh Arthur, at what level of title does one leave the commoner status? Does ROYAL only relate to being born a prince or princess??? But the question still stands, Richard was born into a Royal Family, and was a King at his death. Surely Her Majesty would authorize this burial, especially in such amazing circumstances.
>
>On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Ultimately she would need to authorise.
>
>There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.
>
>Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Arthur.
>
>I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com>>
>>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>>
>>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>>
>>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>>
>>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards as escorts.
>>>
>>> The Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10,Â
>>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily]Â
>>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions.Â
>>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>> Â
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> Â
>>> Arthur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >________________________________
>>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>>> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Â
>>> >liz williams wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>>> >
>>> >Carol responds:
>>> >
>>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>>> >> ÃÂ
>>> >> à"While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ââ¬" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ââ¬" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>>> >
>>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>>> >
>>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>>> >
>>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>>> >
>>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>>> >
>>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>>> >
>>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>>> >
>>> >Carol
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Yes. And as now we have " evidence" that he killed the boys since he went on a pilgrimage, lets shove him in a corner so the flea market can go on........
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:48 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.
> > >
> >
> > But it goes so nicely with the themes of 'sin and redemption', doesn't it?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.

She was being sarcastic.

Hello Eileen, things going on that we do not know about as yet, don't think York Minster is not involved.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I havent really got that much involved before in the posts about *where* he Richard should be buried and I took the line that well, if Leicester were offering and York were not then let Leicester have him. After all this I feel strongly now that Leicester is not the right/appropriate place. I now believe they are simply not up to it. Of course this does not change the fact that York Minster still has not made any advances to imply that they are interested in offering Richard a burial place. This really is beyond belief. The buildings are there but the people in authority in my opinion leave a lot to be desired...I am not 'panicking' but Im extremely worried now..Anyone who has had to battle against red tape in this country will surely understand my misgivings. Now is not the time to be complacent because believe you me there is a real and strong possibility that *they* will re-bury Richard without a thought as to how the vast majority think or hope he should be buried. Yes they will give it the old' talk the talk' but at the heart of it I dont think they have a bloody clue..and I think they care less. .They have probably taken all that they know about Richard from Shakespeare. We really are in a right pickle here..no mistake about it...Eileenb
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > > We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> > > past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> > > of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> > > whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.
> >
> > Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
> > they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
> > as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
> > should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
> > and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
> > place.
> >
> > If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
> > Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
> > it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
> > visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.
> >
>

Claire, do not put words into my mouch if you please, I don't do it to you or anyone.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> > No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.
>
> She was being sarcastic.
>

From: christineholmes651@...
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Claire, do not put words into my mouch if you please, I don't do it to you
> or anyone.

I've no idea what you're talking about. You responded to Ishita as if you
thought she was being serious, so I pointed out that she was joking. How is
that "putting words into your mouth"? The only words of yours which I
refered to were the ones you yourself had posted seven minutes previously.

Hello Claire, you did not make it clear in your post that you were refering to Ishita being sarcastic, it looks as though you were refering to me being sarcastic.
My last word on this I am not going to argue with you.
Regards
Christine

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: christineholmes651@...
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> > Claire, do not put words into my mouth if you please, I don't do it to you
> > or anyone.
>
> I've no idea what you're talking about. You responded to Ishita as if you
> thought she was being serious, so I pointed out that she was joking. How is
> that "putting words into your mouth"? The only words of yours which I
> refered to were the ones you yourself had posted seven minutes previously.
>

We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we?  We know he did something we would all rather he had not done.  And not on his own.  Being on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.

Sheffe




>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:37 PM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Btw, have you guys seen this article: http://m.thisissouthwales.co.uk/story.html?aid=18199116
>I really really want to throw up! They want to make money of the Rhys guy who is apparently "the man" who killed the king! How the heck do they know that?!!!!
>How sad is it that even this " truly dishonorable" man gets a tomb with effigy and all whereas a good king is swiped under a slab.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
>> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>>
>> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>>
>> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>>
>> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>>
>> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
>> >
>> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
>> >
>> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
 
You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! H  


________________________________
From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

"So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"

"Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"

As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".

What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.

--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> >
>
>
> Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
>
> Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
>
> I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
>

 I do hope so Christine. H



________________________________
From: "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 9:19
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

Hello Eileen, things going on that we do not know about as yet, don't think York Minster is not involved.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> I havent really got that much involved before in the posts about *where* he Richard should be buried and I took the line that well, if Leicester were offering and York were not then let Leicester have him. After all this I feel strongly now that Leicester is not the right/appropriate place. I now believe they are simply not up to it. Of course this does not change the fact that York Minster still has not made any advances to imply that they are interested in offering Richard a burial place. This really is beyond belief. The buildings are there but the people in authority in my opinion leave a lot to be desired...I am not 'panicking' but Im extremely worried now..Anyone who has had to battle against red tape in this country will surely understand my misgivings. Now is not the time to be complacent because believe you me there is a real and strong possibility that *they* will re-bury Richard without a thought as to how the vast majority think or
hope he should be buried. Yes they will give it the old' talk the talk' but at the heart of it I dont think they have a bloody clue..and I think they care less. .They have probably taken all that they know about Richard from Shakespeare. We really are in a right pickle here..no mistake about it...Eileenb
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Hilary Jones
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > > We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> > > past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> > > of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> > > whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.
> >
> > Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
> > they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
> > as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
> > should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
> > and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
> > place.
> >
> > If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
> > Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
> > it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
> > visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.
> >
>

From: Sheffe
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we? We know he did
> something we would all rather he had not done. And not on his own. Being
> on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.

It's because of the traditional claim that Rhys promised Richard faithfully
that Tudor would not pass by him "save over my body", leading Richard to
think he had just promised to die in Richard's defence, and then when the
Tudor army turned up Rhys went and stood underneath a bridge so Henry and
his forces could pass over his body. I don't know if we have any evidence
as to whether this story is true or not, but if it's true it was a very
dishonourable trick played on a too-trusting man.

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
>  
> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! H  
>


The same thing occurred to me, Hilary. Having him in Leicester would be an advantage to Leicester (tourism!) but probably a big inconvenience to the church itself.

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the
> majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a
> group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and
> toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the
> church. Just a thought?! H

I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
into it.

If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny.

It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.

My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.

--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Btw, have you guys seen this article: http://m.thisissouthwales.co.uk/story.html?aid=18199116
> I really really want to throw up! They want to make money of the Rhys guy who is apparently "the man" who killed the king! How the heck do they know that?!!!!
> How sad is it that even this " truly dishonorable" man gets a tomb with effigy and all whereas a good king is swiped under a slab.
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
>
> > "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >
> > "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >
> > As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >
> > What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >
> > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> > >
> > > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> > >
> > > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Well Said!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:39
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>From: Hilary Jones
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:12 AM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the
>> majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a
>> group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and
>> toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the
>> church. Just a thought?! H
>
>I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
>side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
>they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
>best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
>into it.
>
>If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
>the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
>amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
>disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
>the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
>toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny.
>
>
>
>
>

As usual though it all comes down to money - and planning permission.



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:27
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

Well Said!!
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:39
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>From: Hilary Jones
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:12 AM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the
>> majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a
>> group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and
>> toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the
>> church. Just a thought?! H
>
>I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
>side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
>they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
>best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
>into it.
>
>If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
>the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
>amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
>disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
>the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
>toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny.
>
>
>
>
>

Some Years ago I visited the Cathedral at Rouen.

I had. in particular, Wanted to visit the [Norman] Royal Graves there.

Sadly these were 'Behind Bars' and it was impossible to gain access at less than 20 Yards..

The large, [Nearby] Collection Box, was, 'Ignored in Retaliation'.  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:32
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>As usual though it all comes down to money - and planning permission.
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:27
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> 
>
>Well Said!!
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:39
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>> 
>>From: Hilary Jones
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:12 AM
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the
>>> majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a
>>> group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and
>>> toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the
>>> church. Just a thought?! H
>>
>>I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
>>side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
>>they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
>>best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
>>into it.
>>
>>If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
>>the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
>>amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
>>disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
>>the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
>>toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You and me both.  My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor. 
 
 

From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 
It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.

My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.

I's almost a bit like that at the Abbey now. When we asked to see the tomb of Mary Queen of Scots (and Margaret Beaufort who is with her) the guide did a stomp, said we weren't really allowed there (though others obviously were) and we were allowed 5 mins to deviate from the 'route'. Spent plenty of time on the 'princes' urn' though.  



________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:40
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

Some Years ago I visited the Cathedral at Rouen.

I had. in particular, Wanted to visit the [Norman] Royal Graves there.

Sadly these were 'Behind Bars' and it was impossible to gain access at less than 20 Yards..

The large, [Nearby] Collection Box, was, 'Ignored in Retaliation'.  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.

>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:32
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>As usual though it all comes down to money - and planning permission.
>
>________________________________
>From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:27
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> 
>
>Well Said!!
> 
>Kind Regards,
> 
>Arthur.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 10:39
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>> 
>>From: Hilary Jones
>>To:
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:12 AM
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the
>>> majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a
>>> group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and
>>> toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the
>>> church. Just a thought?! H
>>
>>I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
>>side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
>>they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
>>best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
>>into it.
>>
>>If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
>>the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
>>amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
>>disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
>>the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
>>toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Oh, it is lovely. Would it be secure?

On Mar 13, 2013, at 7:27 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Ishita Bandyo
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> Pansy, me too.

I wouldn't say it made me disproportionately angry, but it certainly makes
me proportionately annoyed. If that's their attitude what the hell do they
want him for? Or is it that the cathedral *doesn't* want him but is being
bullied into taking him by the council?

I wish we *could* send him to Sutton Cheney - a lovely airy little church
which handles its Ricardian associations gracefully, and has embroidered
murray-et-azure kneelers donated by the Society.

Well, that is enough to make my stomach turn.......that is the absolute antithesis of what we expected for our King.

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:37 PM, "Ishita Bandyo" <bandyoi@...<mailto:bandyoi@...>> wrote:



Btw, have you guys seen this article: http://m.thisissouthwales.co.uk/story.html?aid=18199116
I really really want to throw up! They want to make money of the Rhys guy who is apparently "the man" who killed the king! How the heck do they know that?!!!!
How sad is it that even this " truly dishonorable" man gets a tomb with effigy and all whereas a good king is swiped under a slab.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...<mailto:mcjohn%40oplink.net>> wrote:

> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>
> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>
> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>
> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >
> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >
> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >
>
>

I do remember the small hue and cry, when it was explained that Diana, was styles, Diana, Princess of Wales, and not Princess Diana, as she was not a princess born. But, wow, I had no idea that those born, lord or lady were still deemed commoners.

On Mar 13, 2013, at 8:53 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian@...>> wrote:



Many of these individuals are/certainly were at the time of their marriage [Di & Queen Mum 'Commoners' ]
I was surprised to learn that Members of the 'Aristocracy' are 'Commoners' .

I was NOT implying Richard was. [Diana of course had her HRH revoked., The Duchess of Windsor Never had it Granted, despite her marriage to a former king]

Bit strange 'Royal status'

Kind Regards,

Arthur Wright.

>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
>To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 20:25
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>Gosh Arthur, at what level of title does one leave the commoner status? Does ROYAL only relate to being born a prince or princess??? But the question still stands, Richard was born into a Royal Family, and was a King at his death. Surely Her Majesty would authorize this burial, especially in such amazing circumstances.
>
>On Mar 13, 2013, at 3:17 PM, "Arthurian" <lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com><mailto:lancastrian@...<mailto:lancastrian%40btinternet.com>>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Ultimately she would need to authorise.
>
>There have been a number of 'State Funerals' for 'Commoners' in my lifetime.
>
>Churchill, Mountbatten, Diana, Princess of Wales & H.M. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Arthur.
>
>I am uncertain if H.M. Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother, is classed as a 'Commoner'.
>
>>________________________________
>> From: "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com><mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com><mailto:favefauve%40btinternet.com<http://40btinternet.com>>>
>>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 19:55
>>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>>
>>Don't forget that one of the Queen's other titles is the Duke of Lancaster...
>>
>>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Arthurian <lancastrian@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> How about a letter to H.M. Q, 'Hoping she is feeling better' & asking for HER opinion/support in the matter of an 'Abused King' denied burial in a suitable place & with appropriate honours?
>>>
>>> Maybe she might offer one of the Guards Regiments / Horse Guards asý escorts.
>>>
>>> Theý Grenadiers usually provide pall bears X 10,ý
>>> Sailors pull the Gun Carriage [Horses 'Spook' too easily]ý
>>> His Grace the Duke of Norfolk is responsible for organising state occasions.ý
>>> [His Ancestor died @ Bosworth, fighting for Richard of course.]
>>> ý
>>> Kind Regards,
>>> ý
>>> Arthur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >________________________________
>>> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>>> >To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
>>> >Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 15:53
>>> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >ý
>>> >liz williams wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>>> >
>>> >Carol responds:
>>> >
>>> >Try using asterisks, like so:
>>> >> ýýý
>>> >> ýýý "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance ýýýýý" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty ýýýýý" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable *and dishonourable* characteristics of human beings."
>>> >
>>> >Did I guess right? BTW, it seems clear that whoever wrote this description was trying to be objective but was not well informed, especially the part about Richard's becoming dejected as he finds so many of his troops joining the other side. I hope that some knowledgeable and authoritative person will set the record straight before any such nonsense is officially and permanently incorporated into the memorial.
>>> >
>>> >I also hope that they will leave the memorial slab where it is. They're talking about new buildings and a garden. Why not put Richard's tomb in a side building with its own garden? I think they should leave their exhibits of his Book of Hours and their slightly inaccurate interpretation of him out of it.
>>> >
>>> >As for the money donated by Richard III Society members, if Leicester Cathedral is not going to use the tomb, I think that the members should have the choice of a refund or using their donation for renovations to the cathedral.
>>> >
>>> >It's very sad that what should be a cause for celebration is turning into a squabble not only over where to bury him but whether he should have a tomb or another slab (hopefully, a raised one) like modern monarchs.
>>> >
>>> >It seems to me that everyone involved at the upper levels (everyone with a say in the matter) is at least trying to be civil and respectful. I think that, above all, the rest of us should stay calm and give them a chance to provide a reasonable and satisfactory solution. Sending calm, respectful letters (how about some good old-fashioned paper-and-envelope letters rather than transitory and easily lost e-mail?) to those in charge is a fine method of stating our views, but panicking serves no purpose and expressing outrage, while enabling us to vent our feelings, does not help the cause we all support (a respectful and appropriate monument to Richard).
>>> >
>>> >As for me, I have no strong opinions on the matter except a desire that those in charge get their facts about Richard straight. I hope that someone from the upper echelons of the R III Society will step in after reading the design brief and clarify a few matters concerning Richard's reign and character, as well as what happened at Bosworth (to the best of our knowledge).
>>> >
>>> >Carol
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

Pamela, if you're not Royal then you are a commoner, it's that simple.     We are all lumped in together. 

That's why there is a distinction in the UK between the Dukes who are "Princes of the Blood" (no matter how adulterated that blood may be) and   Dukes such as the Duke of Norfolk.  He is the premier Duke outside the Royal family but still a commoner. nonetheless

 

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 13:55
Subject: Re: Design Brief

I do remember the small hue and cry, when it was explained that Diana, was styles, Diana, Princess of Wales, and not Princess Diana, as she was not a princess born. But, wow, I had no idea that those born, lord or lady were still deemed commoners.

>
>

Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.



From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Design Brief


It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.

My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.

Yes--if that story was true, he'd have to vie with Buckingham for being "most untrue".  It just seems to me that, lately, I'm seeing a lot of condemnation of anyone who was not with Richard.  I did not know of that story, however. Thanks.
Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:32 AM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>From: Sheffe
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:05 AM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we? We know he did
>> something we would all rather he had not done. And not on his own. Being
>> on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.
>
>It's because of the traditional claim that Rhys promised Richard faithfully
>that Tudor would not pass by him "save over my body", leading Richard to
>think he had just promised to die in Richard's defence, and then when the
>Tudor army turned up Rhys went and stood underneath a bridge so Henry and
>his forces could pass over his body. I don't know if we have any evidence
>as to whether this story is true or not, but if it's true it was a very
>dishonourable trick played on a too-trusting man.
>
>
>
>
>

Oh I know but having always been very proud of my Welsh blood, this annoys me. 
 
I have to tell myself that if they did support Tydder I am making up for it now as best I can!
 
 

From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
To: "<>" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:26
Subject: Re: Design Brief

Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



You and me both.  My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.



From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Design Brief


It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.

My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.











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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Christine...am I allowed to live in hope again then? Eileen

--- In , "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Eileen, things going on that we do not know about as yet, don't think York Minster is not involved.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > I havent really got that much involved before in the posts about *where* he Richard should be buried and I took the line that well, if Leicester were offering and York were not then let Leicester have him. After all this I feel strongly now that Leicester is not the right/appropriate place. I now believe they are simply not up to it. Of course this does not change the fact that York Minster still has not made any advances to imply that they are interested in offering Richard a burial place. This really is beyond belief. The buildings are there but the people in authority in my opinion leave a lot to be desired...I am not 'panicking' but Im extremely worried now..Anyone who has had to battle against red tape in this country will surely understand my misgivings. Now is not the time to be complacent because believe you me there is a real and strong possibility that *they* will re-bury Richard without a thought as to how the vast majority think or hope he should be buried. Yes they will give it the old' talk the talk' but at the heart of it I dont think they have a bloody clue..and I think they care less. .They have probably taken all that they know about Richard from Shakespeare. We really are in a right pickle here..no mistake about it...Eileenb
> >
> > --- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Hilary Jones
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 4:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > > We came to this because the Church in Leicester is trying to balance the
> > > > past with the present. It's a modern, multicultural city and the mission
> > > > of the Church there will be to reach out to the present residents, many of
> > > > whom won't have heard about Richard or want to hear about him.
> > >
> > > Sure - but if they don't feel that he's of interest to their residents, and
> > > they don't mean to use him to create interest either, and they want the tomb
> > > as low key as posisble so they don't get much tourist income either, then he
> > > should go elsewhere. They can still have a museum and a Bosworth memorial
> > > and Ricardian toruists will still call in there en route to hus burial
> > > place.
> > >
> > > If it wasn't for the security issue I'd suggest burying him at Sutton
> > > Cheney, the last church he visited before the battle. I've been there, and
> > > it's lovely. And Leicester could still profit from the tourism because
> > > visitors to Sutton Cheney would stay at hotels in the city.
> > >
> >
>

Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> >
> > Yes. And as now we have " evidence" that he killed the boys since he went on a pilgrimage, lets shove him in a corner so the flea market can go on........

Christine responded:
>
> No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.

Carol comments:

Forgive me for jumping in here. Christine, Ishita was being sarcastic. Note the quotation marks around "evidence." She was referring to Amy License's theory that Richard's pilgrimage to Canterbury meant that he had a grievous sin to atone for. Right, Ishita? The theory is so laughable that even some of the comments on the news story were mocking it (last I checked).

Ishita, please correct me if I made any mistakes here.

Carol

Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
>  
> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>  
>
> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>
> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>
> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>
> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >
> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >
> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Now Liz, I have to face the fact that the earliest trace I can find of some of my French ancestors is a place called Ratcliffe Cluley in Leics. Look that up! Perhaps we were put here to atone :)


________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:42
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Oh I know but having always been very proud of my Welsh blood, this annoys me. 
 
I have to tell myself that if they did support Tydder I am making up for it now as best I can!
 
 

From: Pamela Bain <mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>
To: "<mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:26
Subject: Re: Design Brief

Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com<mailto:mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>> wrote:

You and me both.  My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.

From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
Subject: Re: Design Brief

It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.

My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.





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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be. 


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
>  
> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! H  
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>  
>
> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>
> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>
> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>
> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >
> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >
> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well, that is by and large a nice lump!!!!

On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:06 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Pamela, if you're not Royal then you are a commoner, it's that simple. We are all lumped in together.

That's why there is a distinction in the UK between the Dukes who are "Princes of the Blood" (no matter how adulterated that blood may be) and Dukes such as the Duke of Norfolk. He is the premier Duke outside the Royal family but still a commoner. nonetheless



From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: "<<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 13:55
Subject: Re: Design Brief

I do remember the small hue and cry, when it was explained that Diana, was styles, Diana, Princess of Wales, and not Princess Diana, as she was not a princess born. But, wow, I had no idea that those born, lord or lady were still deemed commoners.

>
>

Well you don't get much more dishonourable than that do you!?.....If true...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Sheffe
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> > We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we? We know he did
> > something we would all rather he had not done. And not on his own. Being
> > on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.
>
> It's because of the traditional claim that Rhys promised Richard faithfully
> that Tudor would not pass by him "save over my body", leading Richard to
> think he had just promised to die in Richard's defence, and then when the
> Tudor army turned up Rhys went and stood underneath a bridge so Henry and
> his forces could pass over his body. I don't know if we have any evidence
> as to whether this story is true or not, but if it's true it was a very
> dishonourable trick played on a too-trusting man.
>

Minions are running the flipping country.....Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
> >  
> > You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! H  
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >  
> >
> > "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >
> > "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >
> > As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >
> > What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> > >
> > > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> > >
> > > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

As my boss used to say - the donkeys have pricked up their ears!



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:53
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Minions are running the flipping country.....Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be. 
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded wayàof the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
> > à
> > You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! Hàà
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> > à
> >
> > "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >
> > "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >
> > As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >
> > What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> > >
> > > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> > >
> > > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
>
>
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
>
> My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

And isn't it fun being a minion, especially a commoner minion!!!!!

On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:



Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be.


________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
Subject: Re: Design Brief




Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded wayý of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
> ý
> You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! Hý ý
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> ý
>
> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
>
> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
>
> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
>
> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > >
> >
> >
> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >
> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >
> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Minions always do the bidding of their superiors and then when it goes pearshaped minions then whinge "its more than my jobs worth" or "I was told to do it"....I much prefer whistleblowers...Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And isn't it fun being a minion, especially a commoner minion!!!!!
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>
>
> Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
> > Â
> > You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! HÂ Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> > Â
> >
> > "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >
> > "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >
> > As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >
> > What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> > >
> > > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> > >
> > > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You have to put your head above the parapet to be a whistleblower; that takes courage. Not a lot of that around now, or then. 



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 15:06
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Minions always do the bidding of their superiors and then when it goes pearshaped minions then whinge "its more than my jobs worth" or "I was told to do it"....I much prefer whistleblowers...Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And isn't it fun being a minion, especially a commoner minion!!!!!
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:51 AM, "Hilary Jones" <hjnatdat@...<mailto:hjnatdat@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Absolutely! Or how the minions can undermine the powers that be.
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb%40googlemail.com>>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 14:47
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>
>
> Hilary...its called moving the goal posts...honestly you couldnt make it up? :0/ Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > If we stand back a moment could this be a backhanded way of the Acting Dean of Leicester Cath saying he really doesn't want Richard there, despite what Bish said on telly in February?
> > Â
> > You see if I was a funky priest trying to reach out to a community, the majority of which is not of the Christian faith, would I really want a group of old nerds graspiing white roses ambling through my mother and toddlers group which it has taken me months to get anywhere near the church. Just a thought?! HÂ Â
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: mcjohn_wt_net <mcjohn@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 1:18
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> > Â
> >
> > "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >
> > "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >
> > As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >
> > What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> > >
> > > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> > >
> > > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
>
>
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
>
> My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions
> of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not
> proud of that.

I'm not thrilled about the fact that my grandfather apparently lost his head
and ordered his men to fire on rioting prisoners as if they were enemy
soldiers, although I can see why it happened.

> But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that
> your past does not color who you are now.

And you have to understand their point of view. If England had been invaded
by Napoleon and ended up with a French governor, it wouldn't matter how fair
and just and personally popular that governor was - he'd still be a foreign
imposition.

There were Welshmen who were loyal to Richard, in any case. One of the
finds from Bosworth is a gold ring with an enamelled white boar on it and an
inscription in Welsh proclaiming support for "The Boar".

Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. This is not the time to be complacent...At long last we can really do something for Richard. Whatever the outcome we will know we did our best. Eileen

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
> >
> > My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> You have to put your head above the parapet to be a whistleblower; that
> takes courage. Not a lot of that around now, or then.

30+ years ago I read a Star Trek fan-story which was actually pretty bad,
even though it was in a collection which had been officially published; but
it contained one memorable statement: "It is only that single step which
commits one to battle which is hard".

Whilst not *completely* true, it's definitely true that the hardest moment
is the bit where you're screwing up your courage to get started: once things
are in motion it becomes easier. And I say this as somebody who once took
on most of the British press, and won, even though it took several years and
reduced me to the brink of suicide at times.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins
> as they say...whatever that may be.

I collect quotations, and one of my favourites, I think from the Miners'
Strike, was "We have girded our loins and tied up the loose ends." Sound
painful!

And, King Richard smiles, with teeth intact!

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:20 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:



Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. This is not the time to be complacent...At long last we can really do something for Richard. Whatever the outcome we will know we did our best. Eileen

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com><http://40waitrose.com>>>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com><http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
> >
> > My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Or as General Patton said, a good battle plan works until the first bullet is fired! That is not verbatim, but you get the idea.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:21 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: Hilary Jones
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> You have to put your head above the parapet to be a whistleblower; that
> takes courage. Not a lot of that around now, or then.

30+ years ago I read a Star Trek fan-story which was actually pretty bad,
even though it was in a collection which had been officially published; but
it contained one memorable statement: "It is only that single step which
commits one to battle which is hard".

Whilst not *completely* true, it's definitely true that the hardest moment
is the bit where you're screwing up your courage to get started: once things
are in motion it becomes easier. And I say this as somebody who once took
on most of the British press, and won, even though it took several years and
reduced me to the brink of suicide at times.

 In some ways we should be glad this has come out now. It would be awful to be a week before an elaborate funeral and then find out what Leics Cathedral's views really are. And it was very timely that given the day before there had been a good debate on the issue and other contenders had had a chance to put their case.  



________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: Design Brief


 

Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. This is not the time to be complacent...At long last we can really do something for Richard. Whatever the outcome we will know we did our best. Eileen

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com/>>>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> > It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
> >
> > My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Well heres a thing...I was very uncomfortable about the time it is going to take to get our King reburied...but hey ho...one of the few things we have on out side is time.

Im going to email Phil Stone to see what he suggests would be a good way forward for us 'minnions'. Whom to write to etc.,....He may be able to suggest something we havent thought of...maybe...Eileen

--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>  In some ways we should be glad this has come out now. It would be awful to be a week before an elaborate funeral and then find out what Leics Cathedral's views really are. And it was very timely that given the day before there had been a good debate on the issue and other contenders had had a chance to put their case.  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 15:20
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
>  
>
> Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. This is not the time to be complacent...At long last we can really do something for Richard. Whatever the outcome we will know we did our best. Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> >
> > I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!
> >
> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
> > >
> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@>> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com/>>>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> > > Subject: Re: Design Brief
> > >
> > >
> > > It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
> > >
> > > My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sheffe wrote:
>
> We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we?  We know he did something we would all rather he had not done.  And not on his own.  Being on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.
>
Carol responds:

He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death blow.

A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide. Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.

Carol

Ive been googling and found out that this saying originated from the countries where they were long robes...if they knew they were going into battle they would have to pull the robe up and kind of twist it and tuck it up...there you go...Eileen

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> I collect quotations, and one of my favourites, I think from the Miners'
> Strike, was "We have girded our loins and tied up the loose ends." Sound
> painful!
>

From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales
> (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do
> it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been
> bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death
> blow.

> A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide.
> Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.

The treason and regicide aren't necessarily dishonourable, because from a
Welsh perspective Richard was just the overlord of an occupying power - he
wasn't *their* king. But the false promise is very dishonourable, and if
Rhys committed the treason and regicide because he'd been bribed with
promises of personal advancement, rather than out of sincere Welsh
patriotism, then they were dishonourable too, because even though Richard
wasn't Rhys's king, he was still a man who hadn't done Rhys any harm and
didn't deserve to be betrayed effectively for money.

From: EileenB
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief


> Ive been googling and found out that this saying originated from the
> countries where they were long robes...if they knew they were going into
> battle they would have to pull the robe up and kind of twist it and tuck
> it up...there you go...Eileen

Yes. Highland soldiers in particular would take off their plaids, which
were rather bulky, and fight in knee-length shirts, after first pulling the
shirt-tails up between their legs and tieing them in a big knot in front of
the groin, providing some protection.

As a lover of words, it is so interesting to find the original meaning.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:04 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:



From: EileenB
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> Ive been googling and found out that this saying originated from the
> countries where they were long robes...if they knew they were going into
> battle they would have to pull the robe up and kind of twist it and tuck
> it up...there you go...Eileen

Yes. Highland soldiers in particular would take off their plaids, which
were rather bulky, and fight in knee-length shirts, after first pulling the
shirt-tails up between their legs and tieing them in a big knot in front of
the groin, providing some protection.

Claire M Jordan wrote:

"I think you're probably right. Unless money is forthcoming for a dedicated
side-chapel this is going to cause enormous disruption for the cathedral and
they're not going to see most of the tourist money, so I think they are at
best very luke-warm about the whole thing and the council is forcing them
into it.
If they could have a side-chapel for Richard and a memorial garden for all
the dead of Bosworth, though, that would increase rather than decrease their
amenities, the ambling old nerds would stay mostly outside and the only
disruption would be for a few weeks while an arch was being put in to join
the side-chapel onto the side of the main building. And the mothers and
toddlers group could play in the garden when it was sunny."

Doug here:
Your first paragraph sums up my feelings about any "reluctance" on the part
of the Cathedral authorities although wouldn't the council be able to, um,
"assist" by providing *some* funding?
I really do like the idea of a side chapel. That would disrupt any
activities in the Cathedral the least while still providing a suitable final
resting place for Richard. I'm afraid I don't know how Leicester Cathedral
is situated, but hopefully such an addition could be sited to get the most
sun. If there was room, and enough funding, a table tomb in the center of a
cloister would be also fitting, but I seriously doubt that happening!
And those so inclined could also view the chapel as a sort of response to
the Henry VII Chapel at Westminster...
Doug

Totally agree - and  let's not forget that Tudor wasn't even "that" Welsh anyway and he and his son did nothing for the country.
 

 
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Design Brief

 

From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales
> (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do
> it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been
> bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death
> blow.

> A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide.
> Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.

The treason and regicide aren't necessarily dishonourable, because from a
Welsh perspective Richard was just the overlord of an occupying power - he
wasn't *their* king. But the false promise is very dishonourable, and if
Rhys committed the treason and regicide because he'd been bribed with
promises of personal advancement, rather than out of sincere Welsh
patriotism, then they were dishonourable too, because even though Richard
wasn't Rhys's king, he was still a man who hadn't done Rhys any harm and
didn't deserve to be betrayed effectively for money.

"ricard1an" wrote:
[snip]
> My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.

Carol responds:

But Thomas wasn't his surname; it was his patronymic. Any sons of his would have the patronymic "ap Rhys." It would probably be easy enough to find his genealogy if you're interested. Personally, I wish the Tydder's troops really had ridden over his belly, stepping on him and perhaps dropping a large--never mind. You get the idea. Had Richard survived Bosworth, Rhys would have been executed, but whether he would have rated an aristocratic beheading as opposed to hanging, drawing, and quartering (a punishment devised for another Welsh traitor), I don't know.

Carol

No, just dear Jasper. So why are there no Royals named Jasper????

On Mar 14, 2013, at 11:42 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:



Totally agree - and let's not forget that Tudor wasn't even "that" Welsh anyway and he and his son did nothing for the country.



From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:14
Subject: Re: Design Brief



From: justcarol67
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Design Brief

> He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales
> (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do
> it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been
> bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death
> blow.

> A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide.
> Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.

The treason and regicide aren't necessarily dishonourable, because from a
Welsh perspective Richard was just the overlord of an occupying power - he
wasn't *their* king. But the false promise is very dishonourable, and if
Rhys committed the treason and regicide because he'd been bribed with
promises of personal advancement, rather than out of sincere Welsh
patriotism, then they were dishonourable too, because even though Richard
wasn't Rhys's king, he was still a man who hadn't done Rhys any harm and
didn't deserve to be betrayed effectively for money.

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.

Carol responds:

Not to mention that Richard had Welsh supporters. Wasn't his Herbert son-in-law Welsh? Morgan Kidwelly definitely was. Both remained loyal to Richard.

Carol

Pamela Bain wrote:
>
> And isn't it fun being a minion, especially a commoner minion!!!!!

Carol responds:

I don't think we Americans even rate commoner status. Possibly, we've been upgraded from colonists to foreigners! Guess I'd better not let the royals find out that one of my ancestors was, ostensibly, the executioner of Charles I!

Carol

"EileenB" wrote:
>
> Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. [snip]

Carol responds:

Here, Eileen. This article is both funny and informative on the subject of girding your loins:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/10/loingirding_101.html

Nothing to do with Richard, but, hey--Joe Biden is Catholic and an important political figure, so there's a (remote) connection.

Carol

I am proud to be Welsh Pammy, maybe I should have said ashamed of some of my fellow countrymen. It just annoys me that they are jumping on the bandwagon and peddling Shakespeare as historical truth instead of great literature.

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
>
>
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
>
> My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Christine , I was being sarcastic. Did you read the article by Amy License? She hypothesizes that since Richard went to Canterbury for pilgrimage he must have been suffering from guilt associative with murdering the nephews. What a load of no sense.

Maybe I should start putting my feelings in brackets( smile).

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

On Mar 14, 2013, at 5:08 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> --- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
> >
> > Yes. And as now we have " evidence" that he killed the boys since he went on a pilgrimage, lets shove him in a corner so the flea market can go on........
> >
> > Ishita Bandyo
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:48 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > --- In , "mairemulholland" <mairemulholland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > And - remember - he also lost heart at Bosworth (I guess his conscience was bothering him because he killed those little boys). Their "history" of Richard seems a little cliched and...um...incorrect to me. Maire.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But it goes so nicely with the themes of 'sin and redemption', doesn't it?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Well Carol...I think our loins are well and truly girded on here..in fact never have anyone's girded loins, in the long history of loins being girded, have so many loins been as girded as our loins are girded. :0) Eileen

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "EileenB" wrote:
> >
> > Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. [snip]
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Here, Eileen. This article is both funny and informative on the subject of girding your loins:
>
> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/10/loingirding_101.html
>
> Nothing to do with Richard, but, hey--Joe Biden is Catholic and an important political figure, so there's a (remote) connection.
>
> Carol
>

Carol, Claire , no mistake! I was being sarcastic! Maybe I should put expressions next to my comments:)


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

On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:47 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:

> Ishita Bandyo wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes. And as now we have " evidence" that he killed the boys since he went on a pilgrimage, lets shove him in a corner so the flea market can go on........
>
> Christine responded:
> >
> > No we do not have any new evidence that Richard had his nephews killed.
>
> Carol comments:
>
> Forgive me for jumping in here. Christine, Ishita was being sarcastic. Note the quotation marks around "evidence." She was referring to Amy License's theory that Richard's pilgrimage to Canterbury meant that he had a grievous sin to atone for. Right, Ishita? The theory is so laughable that even some of the comments on the news story were mocking it (last I checked).
>
> Ishita, please correct me if I made any mistakes here.
>
> Carol
>
>

Richard was well thought of in Wales at least in South Wales and so were the Mortimers. Didn't one of the Mortimers marry one of Owain Glyndwr's daughter? The Tydder didn't do anything for the Welsh. Also the Irish thought well of Richard Duke of York, I think he was Lord Lieutenent of Ireland, that is probably why Richard was on friendly terms with the Earl of Desmond. Another reason to believe that if Richard had survived maybe we wouldn't have had all the troubles in Ireland. Jeremy Potter says that Richard was pragmatic and that he might have initiated his own form of reformation, There was a movement towards Protestantism in Europe. If he had it wouldn't have been the violent break from Rome that we saw under the Tudors.

--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales
> > (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do
> > it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been
> > bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death
> > blow.
>
> > A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide.
> > Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.
>
> The treason and regicide aren't necessarily dishonourable, because from a
> Welsh perspective Richard was just the overlord of an occupying power - he
> wasn't *their* king. But the false promise is very dishonourable, and if
> Rhys committed the treason and regicide because he'd been bribed with
> promises of personal advancement, rather than out of sincere Welsh
> patriotism, then they were dishonourable too, because even though Richard
> wasn't Rhys's king, he was still a man who hadn't done Rhys any harm and
> didn't deserve to be betrayed effectively for money.
>

There are plenty of Americans who I am not proud of....... There are dolts in every country, as well as wonderful, intelligent, caring people.

On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:36 PM, "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend@...>> wrote:



I am proud to be Welsh Pammy, maybe I should have said ashamed of some of my fellow countrymen. It just annoys me that they are jumping on the bandwagon and peddling Shakespeare as historical truth instead of great literature.

--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@...<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
>
>
>
> From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com>>>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
>
> My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

No we don't know if he was dishonorable. But in my thinking, rightly or wrongly, he let Tudor pass through his watch and joined him. Thus committing treason. And treason is not very honorable, is it? And what bothers me about this particular incident is that they want to dig him up just so they can generate revenue and ride on this " Richard wave"
Respectfully.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 14, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Sheffe <shethra77@...> wrote:

> We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we? We know he did something we would all rather he had not done. And not on his own. Being on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.
>
> Sheffe
>
> >________________________________
> > From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
> >To: ">
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 9:37 PM
> >Subject: Re: Design Brief
> >
> >
> >
> >Btw, have you guys seen this article: http://m.thisissouthwales.co.uk/story.html?aid=18199116
> >I really really want to throw up! They want to make money of the Rhys guy who is apparently "the man" who killed the king! How the heck do they know that?!!!!
> >How sad is it that even this " truly dishonorable" man gets a tomb with effigy and all whereas a good king is swiped under a slab.
> >
> >Ishita Bandyo
> >Sent from my iPad
> >
> >On Mar 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, "mcjohn_wt_net" <mcjohn@...> wrote:
> >
> >> "So what d'ye want to do with the prince-murderer?"
> >>
> >> "Dunno, people are interested in 'im to toss pound notes our way, God knows why. Maybe we could use the money to redo all that rotten wiring on the ceiling lights?"
> >>
> >> As was pointed out just recently, the tomb design was approved by ALL stakeholders quite some time ago and was intended to be held in reserve in case, against, all odds, Richard's remains were found and exhumed. That was, of course, back when the Rev Viv was in charge at Leicester Cathedral; her successor appears to be engaging in a rather meaningless pec-flexing exercise to dismantle the carefully-worked out agreement that was supposed to avoid exactly the sort of idiotic, unnecessary controversy they themselves have stirred up with their lukewarm hash of a "design brief".
> >>
> >> What jumped out at me immediately was the complete exclusion of input from anyone from the RIII Society, who must be familiar enough around the joint to have their own parking spaces by now. They did not so much as bother to run it past anyone in the Society, much less Ms. Langley, Dr. Ashdown-Hill, or Dr. Stone, as is evident from the astonishing judgmentalism and factual error evident in the demonizing text regarding the king's life, reign, and death. There's no way that any member of the RIII Society would have let that get out in draft, much less a finished document. Not showing that document to people who are probably there three times a week and have already presented an agreed-on design has to have been deliberate.
> >>
> >> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > The part about lighting creating a "sense of awe and wonder" *is* in the original brief (last paragraph on page 8 under "Light"). There's also a section called "Ethos" which mentions a warm color scheme to reflect the colors used in the cathedral as opposed to cool colors, which would look "hard and flat" and the use of "organic imagery," including Richard's (really the House of York's) white rose, already depicted in the imagery of the north porch, and "medieval use of metal and enamel" (p. 9).
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Oops, so it is. I stand corrected - and I did re-read the brief so I haven't that excuse!
> >> >
> >> > Still, a lighting scheme isn't exactly a long-lasting memorial. If the greater part of that 'sense of awe and wonder' is going to the based on the lighting, it's hardly going to be around centuries from now. (And even the lighting sounds a bit half-hearted: they won't be able to carry out extensive changes, but 'some improvements to the lighting' will apparently be enough to create that sense of awe and wonder...)
> >> >
> >> > I think the 'Ethos' section is basically saying that the memorial needs to fit in with the overall aesthetic of the church - I don't get much else out of that part. The warm colour palette 'reflects the materials in the cathedral', and if I understand correctly, the organic imagery refers to plasterwork on the north porch, which might be incorporated into the design. The 'medieval use of metal and enamel' sounds promising, but these are still just suggestions what the design *might* include. Or might not.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Carol, Claire exactly my point!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:14 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
> > He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales
> > (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do
> > it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been
> > bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death
> > blow.
>
> > A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide.
> > Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.
>
> The treason and regicide aren't necessarily dishonourable, because from a
> Welsh perspective Richard was just the overlord of an occupying power - he
> wasn't *their* king. But the false promise is very dishonourable, and if
> Rhys committed the treason and regicide because he'd been bribed with
> promises of personal advancement, rather than out of sincere Welsh
> patriotism, then they were dishonourable too, because even though Richard
> wasn't Rhys's king, he was still a man who hadn't done Rhys any harm and
> didn't deserve to be betrayed effectively for money.
>
>

Well said, Liz! Boo to Leicester, they don't deserve to house the remains!

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Ok "my emphasis" doesn't show up here but I'm sure you can guess which bit I was emphasising below.
>  
> Also, - I am still reading through it - what about this?
>  "While the remains of an English King are of historical significance â€" and experience from the Royal visit for the Diamond Jubilee demonstrated how people are attracted to the mystery of royalty â€" it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings. "
>  
> didn't every King of England do the same?
>  
> Ok Leicester just lost my vote, big time.
>  
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 13:02
> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>  
> Who wrote this  sh**??  (My emphasis)
>  
>  
>  "A rebellion against Richard led by the Duke of Buckingham was quelled in October 1483. But in 1485 a second rebellion began, led by Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond.
> The forces of Richard met those of Henry Tudor on the field at Bosworth on 22nd August 1485. Despite his superior forces (Richard is estimated to have mustered 8,000 followers in comparison to Henry’s army of 5,000), Richard seems to have become demoralized â€" perhaps by recognizing a number of his former supporters among the opposing forces. Richard led an impromptu cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks. "
>
> From: liz williams <mailto:ferrymansdaughter%40btinternet.com>
> To: "mailto:%40yahoogroups.commailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2013, 12:54
> Subject: Design Brief
>
>  
> here it is
>  
>  
>  
> http://www.cathedral.leicester.anglican.org/documents/ArchitectsBriefforGraveofRichardIII130313.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>

Apologies to all.  I was unfamiliar with the story.  If it's true, then I don't care much for his guts, either.
 
Sheffe





>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:54 AM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Sheffe wrote:
>>
>> We don't know that Rhys was a dishonorable man, do we?  We know he did something we would all rather he had not done.  And not on his own.  Being on the "wrong" side does not make a person dishonorable.
>>
>Carol responds:
>
>He promised Richard that he would prevent Tudor from entering Wales (supposedly, he said that Tudor would have to cross over his belly to do it), and then he not only allowed him to enter but joined him, having been bribed with the rule of all Wales. And he may have dealt Richard his death blow.
>
>A false promise (lie), treason, regicide or complicity in regicide. Offhand, I'd say that's dishonorable on three counts.
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>

Any Information?

Attendance at Richard's Funeral:
Will it be by Invitation?
How are these Obtained?
How Much Notice will be Given?
Qualification for Invitation?

I am aware it is 'Early Days' Yet, But will need to book hotel etc.

Hopefully to be in AFTERNOON.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 15:51
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>Well heres a thing...I was very uncomfortable about the time it is going to take to get our King reburied...but hey ho...one of the few things we have on out side is time.
>
>Im going to email Phil Stone to see what he suggests would be a good way forward for us 'minnions'. Whom to write to etc.,....He may be able to suggest something we havent thought of...maybe...Eileen
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>>  In some ways we should be glad this has come out now. It would be awful to be a week before an elaborate funeral and then find out what Leics Cathedral's views really are. And it was very timely that given the day before there had been a good debate on the issue and other contenders had had a chance to put their case.  
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 15:20
>> Subject: Re: Design Brief
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> Yes...we could be 'good' minnions...we will have to be girding our loins as they say...whatever that may be. This is not the time to be complacent...At long last we can really do something for Richard. Whatever the outcome we will know we did our best. Eileen
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>> >
>> > I think in the majority of people good outweighs the bad. I live in hope. And, I hope we mere minions can move this goal posts ourselves! Eileen I love your passion. This site is a joy to be a part of.......great discussions, and books to read, places to visit. We will get this done, I pray!
>> >
>> > On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:03 AM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Well said Pammy....good and bad in everyone....:0) Eileen
>> >
>> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Gang, none of us can control the location of birth and life or the actions of our ancestors. I had some slave holders in my family, and I am not proud of that. But, it cannot be erased. So is you are Welsh, be proud, and know that your past does not color who you are now.
>> > >
>> > > On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "liz williams" <ferrymansdaughter@<mailto:ferrymansdaughter@>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > You and me both. My father was from Merioneth and hopefully with a name like Williams I will never know if any of my ancestors were fooled by Henry "I'm Welsh when it suits me" Tudor.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > From: ricard1an <maryfriend@<mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com<http://40waitrose.com/>>>
>> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com><mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com/>>
>> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 12:10
>> > > Subject: Re: Design Brief
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It makes me ashamed to be Welsh. Really Welsh unlike the Tydder. Richard was well thought of in Wales as he was I believe Lord of Glamorgan. He has connections to the Church in Cowbridge and there is a record of Queen Anne giving money to the Church in Llanblethian which is near to Cowbridge. Also there is a stained glass window dedicated to him and Anne in Cardiff Castle. This Councillor is not very well read otherwise he would know that his statements were untrue.
>> > >
>> > > My father's family came from Carmarthenshire and so far I have not found any Thomas surnames hopefully I won't as who would want to be related to a traitor. Richard probably did more for Wales than the Tydder did as I remember being taught at school that the Welsh people were disappointed because the Tydder didvery little for them.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes. Highland soldiers in particular would take off their plaids, which 
were rather bulky, and fight in knee-length shirts, after first pulling the 
shirt-tails up between their legs and tieing them in a big knot in front of 

the groin, ??providing some protection.??

As a 'Male' [Last time I looked] I am glad my 'Essentials' are a little better protected!!  
 
Kind Regards,
 
Arthur.



>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:17
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>
> 
>From: EileenB
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Design Brief
>
>> Ive been googling and found out that this saying originated from the
>> countries where they were long robes...if they knew they were going into
>> battle they would have to pull the robe up and kind of twist it and tuck
>> it up...there you go...Eileen
>
>Yes. Highland soldiers in particular would take off their plaids, which
>were rather bulky, and fight in knee-length shirts, after first pulling the
>shirt-tails up between their legs and tieing them in a big knot in front of
>the groin, providing some protection.
>
>
>
>
>