Re: dishonorable
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 05:32:17
Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable&.Yes, the only possible "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of Hastings. I didn't forget, I was just so overheated! And&we don't let Richard off the hook&.we will analyze this incident until doomsday&trying to reveal absolutely every detail&being fair to our true cause&.the TRUTH. Which we know is&.The Daughter of Time. Carol D.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 05:42:42
From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable&.Yes, the only possible
> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> Hastings.
That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
dearest, will lose out."
And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
him, but he probably wasn't.
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable&.Yes, the only possible
> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> Hastings.
That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
dearest, will lose out."
And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
him, but he probably wasn't.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 10:05:32
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
> > Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable….Yes, the only possible
> > "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> > Hastings.
>
> That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> dearest, will lose out."
>
> And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
>
And at the time, he might have agreed (however reluctantly) that it needed to be done.
To a dispassionate observer, the death of the Woodvilles would probably seem just as shady as that of Hastings, but of course we have no idea what exactly was going on (and that applies to Hastings as well).
At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's Chapel...
Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham - and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour him as a King.
>
> From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
> > Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable….Yes, the only possible
> > "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> > Hastings.
>
> That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> dearest, will lose out."
>
> And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
>
And at the time, he might have agreed (however reluctantly) that it needed to be done.
To a dispassionate observer, the death of the Woodvilles would probably seem just as shady as that of Hastings, but of course we have no idea what exactly was going on (and that applies to Hastings as well).
At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's Chapel...
Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham - and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour him as a King.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 10:15:06
From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as
> many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and
> *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to
> reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's
> Chapel...
Absolutely - Richard's ratio of honourable to dishonourable acts was far
higher than for most monarchs of the period (and that's just the English
ones: compare him with some of the things the French kings got up to and he
looks like the Angel Gabriel). Much higher than for Henry, who gets that
wonderful tomb - even though I'm fond of Henry there's no getting round the
fact that he was a devious shyster.
> Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham -
> and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing
> of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour
> him as a King.
Yes - and they probably also think he must have done in his nephews.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as
> many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and
> *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to
> reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's
> Chapel...
Absolutely - Richard's ratio of honourable to dishonourable acts was far
higher than for most monarchs of the period (and that's just the English
ones: compare him with some of the things the French kings got up to and he
looks like the Angel Gabriel). Much higher than for Henry, who gets that
wonderful tomb - even though I'm fond of Henry there's no getting round the
fact that he was a devious shyster.
> Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham -
> and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing
> of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour
> him as a King.
Yes - and they probably also think he must have done in his nephews.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 12:00:51
I think you're giving "them" too much credit as far as knowing *any* of the
details of Richard & his history beyond the princes & Bosworth.
By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so
"they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that
expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character
assassination?
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:05 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> >
> > > Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorableý.Yes, the only possible
> > > "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> > > Hastings.
> >
> > That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of ý100
> he
> > appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> > would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years
> after
> > his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> > saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he
> holds
> > dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> > equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> > dearest, will lose out."
> >
> > And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> > Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young
> and
> > I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set
> on.
> >
>
> And at the time, he might have agreed (however reluctantly) that it needed
> to be done.
>
> To a dispassionate observer, the death of the Woodvilles would probably
> seem just as shady as that of Hastings, but of course we have no idea what
> exactly was going on (and that applies to Hastings as well).
>
> At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as
> many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and
> *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to
> reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's
> Chapel...
>
> Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham -
> and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing
> of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour
> him as a King.
>
>
>
details of Richard & his history beyond the princes & Bosworth.
By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so
"they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that
expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character
assassination?
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:05 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
> --- In , "Claire M Jordan"
> <whitehound@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> >
> > > Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorableý.Yes, the only possible
> > > "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> > > Hastings.
> >
> > That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of ý100
> he
> > appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> > would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years
> after
> > his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> > saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he
> holds
> > dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> > equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> > dearest, will lose out."
> >
> > And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> > Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young
> and
> > I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set
> on.
> >
>
> And at the time, he might have agreed (however reluctantly) that it needed
> to be done.
>
> To a dispassionate observer, the death of the Woodvilles would probably
> seem just as shady as that of Hastings, but of course we have no idea what
> exactly was going on (and that applies to Hastings as well).
>
> At any rate, off the top of my head I can come up with at least just as
> many 'dishonourable' things that Edward IV is *known* to have done, and
> *he* got a motherflippin' mausoleum! I don't see people being urged to
> reflect on the themes of sin and redemption when visiting St George's
> Chapel...
>
> Of course, if they believe that the whole pre-contract thing was a sham -
> and they probably do - then that would be the biggest dishonourable thing
> of all; and would explain why they don't seem especially eager to honour
> him as a King.
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 14:41:15
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
[snip]
>
> And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints him, but he probably wasn't.
Carol responds:
I doubt that whoever wrote the brief had those things, all of which are very minor and subject to interpretation, in mind.
Speaking of Sir Ralph Assheton, I found a reference to him in "The Road to Bosworth." Richard sent him to York to escort a prisoner named Thomas Redeheld, a servant of Richard's own treasurer, to the mayor of York to be punished for assaulting a citizen of York. Apparently, Assheton was, like Tyrell and Ratcliffe, a trusted retainer.
I suspect that Assheton, like so many of Richard's friends, was simply blackened with the same brush that blackened Richard after Bosworth. "He was the friend of a tyrant and murderer, so he must be wicked." After all, Tyrell's own descendants believed that he murdered the "Princes," so Assheton's neighbors' descendants could have distorted some story about him into the beginnings of the legend of a monster. It doesn't take much, as we can see in Richard's own case.
Carol
Carol
[snip]
>
> And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints him, but he probably wasn't.
Carol responds:
I doubt that whoever wrote the brief had those things, all of which are very minor and subject to interpretation, in mind.
Speaking of Sir Ralph Assheton, I found a reference to him in "The Road to Bosworth." Richard sent him to York to escort a prisoner named Thomas Redeheld, a servant of Richard's own treasurer, to the mayor of York to be punished for assaulting a citizen of York. Apparently, Assheton was, like Tyrell and Ratcliffe, a trusted retainer.
I suspect that Assheton, like so many of Richard's friends, was simply blackened with the same brush that blackened Richard after Bosworth. "He was the friend of a tyrant and murderer, so he must be wicked." After all, Tyrell's own descendants believed that he murdered the "Princes," so Assheton's neighbors' descendants could have distorted some story about him into the beginnings of the legend of a monster. It doesn't take much, as we can see in Richard's own case.
Carol
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:10:41
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Yes - and they probably also think he must have done in his nephews.
Carol responds:
To be fair, they put the precontract, the assumption of the throne, and the disappearance of the nephews in objective terms:
"When Edward IV died in April 1483, his brother Richard was made Lord Protector for Edward's heir, the 12 year old Edward V. The coronation was planned for June the same year, but before it could occur, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid. His brother's children having been declared illegitimate, Richard was crowned King on 6th July 1483. The fate of young Edward and his brother remains a mystery."
I don't see how they could have been more objective. They didn't even refer to Richard's nephews as "princes."
Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
Carol
> Yes - and they probably also think he must have done in his nephews.
Carol responds:
To be fair, they put the precontract, the assumption of the throne, and the disappearance of the nephews in objective terms:
"When Edward IV died in April 1483, his brother Richard was made Lord Protector for Edward's heir, the 12 year old Edward V. The coronation was planned for June the same year, but before it could occur, Edward IV's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was declared invalid. His brother's children having been declared illegitimate, Richard was crowned King on 6th July 1483. The fate of young Edward and his brother remains a mystery."
I don't see how they could have been more objective. They didn't even refer to Richard's nephews as "princes."
Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:17:12
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> I don't see how they could have been more objective. They didn't even
> refer to Richard's nephews as "princes."
I agree, that's very fair. But in that case, what do they mean by the
"dishonourable" bit, other than that he wasn't an actual saint? Are they
saying that *nobody*, other than an actual saint, should be buried in a way
that celebrates them extravagantly? I bet that plays well with families
seeking to bury their favourite relatives in Leicester.
Or they mean, we don't believe the marriage *was* invalid and we think he
did his nephews in even though we can't prove it.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> I don't see how they could have been more objective. They didn't even
> refer to Richard's nephews as "princes."
I agree, that's very fair. But in that case, what do they mean by the
"dishonourable" bit, other than that he wasn't an actual saint? Are they
saying that *nobody*, other than an actual saint, should be buried in a way
that celebrates them extravagantly? I bet that plays well with families
seeking to bury their favourite relatives in Leicester.
Or they mean, we don't believe the marriage *was* invalid and we think he
did his nephews in even though we can't prove it.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:29:03
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
>
Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to, if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable, sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague, veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the context, in my opinion.
How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for him.'?
>
> Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
>
Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to, if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable, sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague, veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the context, in my opinion.
How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for him.'?
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:31:24
I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> >
>
> Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
>
> Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> context, in my opinion.
>
> How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> him.'?
>
>
>
A J
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
> **
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> >
>
> Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
>
> Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> context, in my opinion.
>
> How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> him.'?
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:37:49
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so "they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character assassination?
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
>
> By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so "they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character assassination?
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 16:57:24
By the way, the Duke of Gloucester is by profession an architect. Did anyone seek his views, if only out of courtesy?
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: dishonorable
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so "they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character assassination?
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 16:37
Subject: Re: dishonorable
A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> By the way, has anyone made any progress in identifying who "they" are so "they" may be contacted to express our dismay that even the church that expects to take possession of this King's remains persists in character assassination?
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:01:19
Who is Assheton?
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:55 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable&.Yes, the only possible
>> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
>> Hastings.
>
> That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> dearest, will lose out."
>
> And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
>
> And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
> him, but he probably wasn't.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:55 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable&.Yes, the only possible
>> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
>> Hastings.
>
> That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> dearest, will lose out."
>
> And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
>
> And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
> him, but he probably wasn't.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:07:01
Well, Joan of Arc associated with Gilles de Rais but that doesn't mean she condoned Bluebeard-like behavior. Maire.
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Who is Assheton?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:55 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> >
> >> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable….Yes, the only possible
> >> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> >> Hastings.
> >
> > That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> > appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> > would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> > his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> > saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> > dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> > equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> > dearest, will lose out."
> >
> > And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> > Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> > I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
> >
> > And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
> > him, but he probably wasn't.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...> wrote:
>
> Who is Assheton?
>
> Ishita Bandyo
> www.ishitabandyo.com
> www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
> www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:55 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> > From: "Carol Darling" <cdarlingart1@...>
> > To: <>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> >
> >> Reply to Justcarol re: dishonorable….Yes, the only possible
> >> "dishonorable" thing Richard did was the extremely rapid execution of
> >> Hastings.
> >
> > That and the fact that in that famous letter asking for a loan of £100 he
> > appears to be touting for a bribe (but he was only a teenager), which we
> > would now regard as a bit off. And there's that court case some years after
> > his death which involved a letter he had written to one of the Pastons
> > saying something like "He must do as I say or it will cost him that he holds
> > dearest" which *might* be a threat - the court took it to be - but might
> > equally mean "If he doesn't do as I say then the king, whom he holds
> > dearest, will lose out."
> >
> > And if poor old Harry Six was done in then Richard, as Constable of the
> > Tower, must at the least have failed to stop it - but he was very young and
> > I don't suppose he could prevent Edward from doing something he was set on.
> >
> > And being friends with Assheton *if* Assheton was the monster legend paints
> > him, but he probably wasn't.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:12:07
People to write to could include
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.)
Rt Hon Frank Field MP
Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
Carol
Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.)
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:24:02
From: Ishita Bandyo
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Who is Assheton?
Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
so.
His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
opposed to punitive taxation.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Who is Assheton?
Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
so.
His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
opposed to punitive taxation.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:26:18
Maybe they aren't openly accusing him of crimes, but they are certainly referring to supposed crimes. And, I agree, what place do such statements have in a design brief for tomb? Further, they obviously know little or nothing about Richard's life and the events that comprise it and seem to be judging him by a 21st century moral code and modern values rather than placing him in the context of his own time. Had this brief been developed in consultation with the Society, I'm certain it wouldn't have passed muster, which tells me it wasn't. They pay lip service to the Society in the brief, but I wonder if, in reality, any of the Society's wishes will actually be taken into consideration. I'm entirely skeptical at this point, but I hope I'm proven wrong.
Pamela Garrett
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Pamela Garrett
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:30:04
Me too....I think it was totally unnecessary to make a comment like that. It not usual and I think that whoever wrote those words does not entirely believe that Richard was innocent of some of the worse stuff he is accused of...mainly the murder of the boys..That is how I read it...Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:36:31
liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
Carol
[snip]
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:38:34
Perhaps we should remember that the Design Brief was written by a religious organisation who tend to view people as generally flawed creatures - remember the words about being without sin and casting the first stone. I am sure the Cathedral authorities didn't want to give the impression that they regard Richard as a 'saint', but rather as a flawed human being like the rest of us.
I have visited the Cathedral and seen their small display about Richard - it is very fairly written and talks also about all the good things he achieved with his only Parliament. Perhaps we are all picking over everything with to fine a tooth comb?
________________________________
EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Me too....I think it was totally unnecessary to make a comment like that. It not usual and I think that whoever wrote those words does not entirely believe that Richard was innocent of some of the worse stuff he is accused of...mainly the murder of the boys..That is how I read it...Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
I have visited the Cathedral and seen their small display about Richard - it is very fairly written and talks also about all the good things he achieved with his only Parliament. Perhaps we are all picking over everything with to fine a tooth comb?
________________________________
EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
Me too....I think it was totally unnecessary to make a comment like that. It not usual and I think that whoever wrote those words does not entirely believe that Richard was innocent of some of the worse stuff he is accused of...mainly the murder of the boys..That is how I read it...Eileen
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I agree - that's certainly how it comes across to me.
>
> A J
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:29 AM, pansydobersby <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the
> > "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of
> > any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler
> > ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> > >
> >
> > Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to,
> > if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable,
> > sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
> >
> > Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that
> > would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague,
> > veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be
> > of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the
> > context, in my opinion.
> >
> > How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King
> > are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't
> > exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for
> > him.'?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:42:19
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric
> is a piece of cloth.
The fabric of a building is the material from which it is made, so it
probably means somebody who makes sure the building is in good condition and
overseas any alterations.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric
> is a piece of cloth.
The fabric of a building is the material from which it is made, so it
probably means somebody who makes sure the building is in good condition and
overseas any alterations.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:48:14
--- In , Pamela Furmidge <pamela.furmidge@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should remember that the Design Brief was written by a religious organisation who tend to view people as generally flawed creatures - remember the words about being without sin and casting the first stone. Â I am sure the Cathedral authorities didn't want to give the impression that they regard Richard as a 'saint', but rather as a flawed human being like the rest of us.
>
> I have visited the Cathedral and seen their small display about Richard - it is very fairly written and talks also about all the good things he achieved with his only Parliament. Â Perhaps we are all picking over everything with to fine a tooth comb?
>
Possibly, but it's that pesky context again. First they're telling why a grand memorial of any kind would be out of place in the cathedral, and then they're further supporting this argument with that paragraph. I honestly can't read it any other way except as: '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
Like I said before - it's the context that makes the paragraph insulting because it brings in implications that wouldn't be there if the paragraph were on its own, in a different context. Sure, he was a flawed human being - but so was every single monarch with a grand memorial in Westminster Abbey, so that really shouldn't enter into this discussion at all, *unless* they're referring to something in particular (other than 'being human') that makes Richard undeserving of a bigger monument.
>
> Perhaps we should remember that the Design Brief was written by a religious organisation who tend to view people as generally flawed creatures - remember the words about being without sin and casting the first stone. Â I am sure the Cathedral authorities didn't want to give the impression that they regard Richard as a 'saint', but rather as a flawed human being like the rest of us.
>
> I have visited the Cathedral and seen their small display about Richard - it is very fairly written and talks also about all the good things he achieved with his only Parliament. Â Perhaps we are all picking over everything with to fine a tooth comb?
>
Possibly, but it's that pesky context again. First they're telling why a grand memorial of any kind would be out of place in the cathedral, and then they're further supporting this argument with that paragraph. I honestly can't read it any other way except as: '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
Like I said before - it's the context that makes the paragraph insulting because it brings in implications that wouldn't be there if the paragraph were on its own, in a different context. Sure, he was a flawed human being - but so was every single monarch with a grand memorial in Westminster Abbey, so that really shouldn't enter into this discussion at all, *unless* they're referring to something in particular (other than 'being human') that makes Richard undeserving of a bigger monument.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 17:58:56
Thanks for that Liz we need as many names we can get. Now this is a very personal thing I am going to say and will count for nought as I am only a little fish in a big pond...but with respect...and I dont wish to cause offence to Leicester Cathedral..not my intent at all...BUT if as they say they do not have the room for the type of monument that, and I believe I can say, the vast majority of Ricardians believe that Richard deserves, then they should simply not have him at all. Simple as that. It would bring them no shame to be honest and give out that they do not have the room that is needed. The cathedral did start life as a parish church after all. I (personal again) dearly would love to see Richard go to somewhere where he is very welcome/and has the space to give him said monument/does not see it as a problem. Where this place may be...and I have changed my stance here because of what I have read has made me unhappy about him going to Leicester now...even with a more suitable tomb..York...I am crossing my fingers here and hoping desperately that York can now come up with something...Eileen...loins girded
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> People to write to could include
> Â
> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
> Â
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
>
> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
>
> Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.) Â
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> People to write to could include
> Â
> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
> Â
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
>
> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
>
> Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.) Â
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 18:03:53
This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>
>
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 18:14:00
Pansy, my thoughts exactly!
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:29 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> >
>
> Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to, if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable, sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
>
> Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague, veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the context, in my opinion.
>
> How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for him.'?
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:29 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > Clearly, they do have some reservations about him based on the "honorable and dishonorable" bit, but they haven't openly accused him of any "crimes," not even those attributed to him by the Croyland chronicler ("usurpation" and the deaths of four "innocent" men).
> >
>
> Not openly, no, but what exactly *is* that whole paragraph referring to, if it's not referring to his supposed crimes? Honourable and dishonourable, sin and redemption - what are those things doing in this brief at all?
>
> Honestly, if they'd *openly* accused him of something in this brief, that would have been... quite extraordinary. Now they're just making vague, veiled accusations in the context of explaining why his memorial should be of modest proportions. What makes that paragraph more insulting is the context, in my opinion.
>
> How else can it be read other than 'While the remains of an English King are of historical significance... it should not be forgotten that he wasn't exactly a good person, and thus simple dignity should be quite enough for him.'?
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 18:27:44
We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish, in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird large!!!!!
On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Thanks for that Liz we need as many names we can get. Now this is a very personal thing I am going to say and will count for nought as I am only a little fish in a big pond...but with respect...and I dont wish to cause offence to Leicester Cathedral..not my intent at all...BUT if as they say they do not have the room for the type of monument that, and I believe I can say, the vast majority of Ricardians believe that Richard deserves, then they should simply not have him at all. Simple as that. It would bring them no shame to be honest and give out that they do not have the room that is needed. The cathedral did start life as a parish church after all. I (personal again) dearly would love to see Richard go to somewhere where he is very welcome/and has the space to give him said monument/does not see it as a problem. Where this place may be...and I have changed my stance here because of what I have read has made me unhappy about him going to Leicester now...even with a more suitable tomb..York...I am crossing my fingers here and hoping desperately that York can now come up with something...Eileen...loins girded
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> People to write to could include
> ý
> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
> ý
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> ý
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
>
> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
>
> Secretary of Stateý Department for Culture Media and Sport) isý a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.)ý ý
>
>
>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
Thanks for that Liz we need as many names we can get. Now this is a very personal thing I am going to say and will count for nought as I am only a little fish in a big pond...but with respect...and I dont wish to cause offence to Leicester Cathedral..not my intent at all...BUT if as they say they do not have the room for the type of monument that, and I believe I can say, the vast majority of Ricardians believe that Richard deserves, then they should simply not have him at all. Simple as that. It would bring them no shame to be honest and give out that they do not have the room that is needed. The cathedral did start life as a parish church after all. I (personal again) dearly would love to see Richard go to somewhere where he is very welcome/and has the space to give him said monument/does not see it as a problem. Where this place may be...and I have changed my stance here because of what I have read has made me unhappy about him going to Leicester now...even with a more suitable tomb..York...I am crossing my fingers here and hoping desperately that York can now come up with something...Eileen...loins girded
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> People to write to could include
> ý
> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
> ý
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> ý
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p. 5.
>
> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>
> Carol
>
>
> Secretary of Stateý Department for Culture Media and Sport) isý a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.)ý ý
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 18:29:53
Claire, Aha! Very interesting. Thank you.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> > Who is Assheton?
>
> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
> Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
> supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
> while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
> servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>
> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
> to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
> Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
> black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
> which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
>
> He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
> contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
> Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
> traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
> who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
> tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
> barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
>
> However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
> him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
> in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
> from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
> so.
>
> His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
> which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
> executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
> brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
> Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
> supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
> explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
> opposed to punitive taxation.
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
> From: Ishita Bandyo
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> > Who is Assheton?
>
> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
> Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
> supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
> while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
> servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>
> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
> to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
> Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
> black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
> which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
>
> He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
> contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
> Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
> traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
> who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
> tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
> barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
>
> However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
> him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
> in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
> from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
> so.
>
> His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
> which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
> executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
> brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
> Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
> supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
> explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
> opposed to punitive taxation.
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:01:31
I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
>
> --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:03:49
"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>
> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed to be based on Assheton [snip]
Carol responds:
Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary. "The axe of the Tower, and Sir Ralph Assheton" must refer to Assheton's position as Richard's vice constable. He tried and was responsible for the execution of Buckingham, since Buckingham, the constable, could not try himself. Anyone under the delusion that Buckingham was an innocent victim could view this action as a "crime." Assheton was also, as you may have mentioned, sheriff of Yorkshire and a knight of the body to Richard. Whether he was at Bosworth, I don't know. He is variously reported to have died in 1484 and 1486.
This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Ashton
Carol
> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>
> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed to be based on Assheton [snip]
Carol responds:
Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary. "The axe of the Tower, and Sir Ralph Assheton" must refer to Assheton's position as Richard's vice constable. He tried and was responsible for the execution of Buckingham, since Buckingham, the constable, could not try himself. Anyone under the delusion that Buckingham was an innocent victim could view this action as a "crime." Assheton was also, as you may have mentioned, sheriff of Yorkshire and a knight of the body to Richard. Whether he was at Bosworth, I don't know. He is variously reported to have died in 1484 and 1486.
This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Ashton
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:24:56
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
> large!!!!!
There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
We are the little folk, we,
Too little to love or to hate:
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can bring down the state.
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
> large!!!!!
There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
We are the little folk, we,
Too little to love or to hate:
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can bring down the state.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:33:12
--- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
(And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>
> Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
(And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:33:14
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary.
Thanks. If not a shining example of good typing.
> This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the
> "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact
Except insofar as he probably did dress in black, as his father reputedly
did. Given the alchemical brother etc I suspect Asheton was a bit of a
showman who played up being the sinisiter Black Knight and liked to dress
the part - especially if, as is quite probable, the local tradition of the
Black Lad predated him.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary.
Thanks. If not a shining example of good typing.
> This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the
> "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact
Except insofar as he probably did dress in black, as his father reputedly
did. Given the alchemical brother etc I suspect Asheton was a bit of a
showman who played up being the sinisiter Black Knight and liked to dress
the part - especially if, as is quite probable, the local tradition of the
Black Lad predated him.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 19:51:52
Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
Eileen
--- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
Eileen
--- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> >
> > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:07:57
It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: dishonorable
liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
Carol
Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
Liz
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
Subject: Re: dishonorable
liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> Â
> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
Carol responds:
OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:14:49
Me too. I was very happy for Leicester to get him but although I'm sure that the people of Leicester will be gutted if York gets him after all, it would - apparently - kind of serve the Cathedral right. I know that sounds horrible but they have made a big mistake here I think. It's not even the slab that bothers me so much (they can look incredibly elegant and simple but really what's the point - he already "has" a slab after all so if that's what they want, why get a new one?) but the language of the brief which I am really really unhappy with.
Maybe it is the "context" but they do say context is everything.
________________________________
From: Pamela <ownwrite101@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:01
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess,
the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> >
> >
>
Maybe it is the "context" but they do say context is everything.
________________________________
From: Pamela <ownwrite101@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:01
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess,
the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> >
> >
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:18:35
But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
Subject: Re: dishonorable
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
(And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
Subject: Re: dishonorable
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>
I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
(And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:24:10
Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> Â
>  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> Â
> Liz
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > ÂÂ
> > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> Â
>  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> Â
> Liz
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > ÂÂ
> > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:27:00
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:27:43
When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> Â
>  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> Â
> Liz
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > ÃÂ
> > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> Â
>  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> Â
> Liz
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> [snip]
> > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > ÃÂ
> > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:29:11
Can't remember - someone will know. I think it was in The Ricardian, it's too early for one thing (and empty for another I think0
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:26
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:26
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:29:12
No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> Â
> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
>
> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>
> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>
> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> Â
> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
>
> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>
> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>
> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:32:49
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
About the same way you misplace a King for over 500 years, I think ;)
And the Queen is missing as well. I tell you, someone has been *really* careless in this game of chess.
>
> No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
About the same way you misplace a King for over 500 years, I think ;)
And the Queen is missing as well. I tell you, someone has been *really* careless in this game of chess.
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:33:25
If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> Â
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> Â
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> Â
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ÂÂ
> >  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ÂÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> Â
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> Â
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> Â
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ÂÂ
> >  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ÂÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ÂÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ÂÂ
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > ÂÂÂ
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 20:35:03
--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> Can't remember - someone will know. I think it was in The Ricardian, it's too early for one thing (and empty for another I think0
>
Thank you Liz!! I do vaguely remember it was doubted that the tomb was Edward's, but I didn't know it was now assumed he wasn't buried in Sheriff Hutton at all. Would love to know more about this.
>
> Can't remember - someone will know. I think it was in The Ricardian, it's too early for one thing (and empty for another I think0
>
Thank you Liz!! I do vaguely remember it was doubted that the tomb was Edward's, but I didn't know it was now assumed he wasn't buried in Sheriff Hutton at all. Would love to know more about this.
Re: Sheriff Hutton/Abbey Burials
2013-03-14 20:37:07
Liz...did you ever glean if there was a lot of vaults underneath the floor. Some of the burials are in vaults underneath the monuments...I thought I read a couple of years ago that they had come across a number of coffins...You just wonder if anyone actually ever bothers to look?
I would love to get a good books that covers all this but I suppose a lot of it is just simply lost to us now...Still..one day..Eileen
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
> >
>
> About the same way you misplace a King for over 500 years, I think ;)
>
> And the Queen is missing as well. I tell you, someone has been *really* careless in this game of chess.
>
I would love to get a good books that covers all this but I suppose a lot of it is just simply lost to us now...Still..one day..Eileen
--- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
> >
>
> About the same way you misplace a King for over 500 years, I think ;)
>
> And the Queen is missing as well. I tell you, someone has been *really* careless in this game of chess.
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:41:12
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied
> everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was
> a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read
> that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
I've got one - if you wanna post it to me I can convert it for you.
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied
> everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was
> a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read
> that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
I've got one - if you wanna post it to me I can convert it for you.
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:44:01
From the Abbey website
"The Dean of Westminster gave permission for her remains to be re-buried in the Abbey, in the north east apsidal chapel of the Lady Chapel, as near as possible to the original site of her burial. Prior to the private ceremony her coffin lay in state in the Jerusalem Chamber at the Abbey surrounded by candles and flowers. On 31 May 1965 she was finally laid to rest.
A new stone was laid over her grave which reads:
1472 ANNE 1481 Daughter of John (Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk child wife of Richard, Duke of York second son of King Edward IV was originally buried near this place. On the rebuilding of this chapel in 1502 her coffin was removed to the church of the Minoresses of St.Clare, London on the site of which church it was discovered in 1964 and reburied here 31 May 1965".
At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Richard, Duke of York and his brother Edward V were imprisoned in the Tower of London by order of Richard III and they were not seen again. Bones thought to be theirs were unearthed in the Tower in the reign of Charles II and these remains of the "Princes in the Tower" were brought to the Abbey by order of the king and interred in a small marble monument near the grave of Elizabeth I. Anne lies a few feet away from this urn."
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:33
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> Â
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> Â
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> Â
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well.ÃÂ When I worked for John who used to beÃÂ Surveyor atÃÂ the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury)ÃÂ he wasÃÂ responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or ÃÂ working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey andÃÂ at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb.ÃÂ (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!).ÃÂ It alsoÃÂ meant being involved ÃÂ the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them.ÃÂ I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it.ÃÂ I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
"The Dean of Westminster gave permission for her remains to be re-buried in the Abbey, in the north east apsidal chapel of the Lady Chapel, as near as possible to the original site of her burial. Prior to the private ceremony her coffin lay in state in the Jerusalem Chamber at the Abbey surrounded by candles and flowers. On 31 May 1965 she was finally laid to rest.
A new stone was laid over her grave which reads:
1472 ANNE 1481 Daughter of John (Mowbray) Duke of Norfolk child wife of Richard, Duke of York second son of King Edward IV was originally buried near this place. On the rebuilding of this chapel in 1502 her coffin was removed to the church of the Minoresses of St.Clare, London on the site of which church it was discovered in 1964 and reburied here 31 May 1965".
At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Richard, Duke of York and his brother Edward V were imprisoned in the Tower of London by order of Richard III and they were not seen again. Bones thought to be theirs were unearthed in the Tower in the reign of Charles II and these remains of the "Princes in the Tower" were brought to the Abbey by order of the king and interred in a small marble monument near the grave of Elizabeth I. Anne lies a few feet away from this urn."
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:33
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> Â
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> Â
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> Â
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well.ÃÂ When I worked for John who used to beÃÂ Surveyor atÃÂ the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury)ÃÂ he wasÃÂ responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or ÃÂ working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey andÃÂ at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb.ÃÂ (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!).ÃÂ It alsoÃÂ meant being involved ÃÂ the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them.ÃÂ I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ÃÂ
> > ÃÂ Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it.ÃÂ I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ÃÂ
> > Liz
> >
> > ÃÂ
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ÃÂ
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > Ã’â¬aÃÂ
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:47:10
Oh Claire thanks. Of course i'm not actually sure if I've still got it. I'll have a look.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied
> everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was
> a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read
> that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
I've got one - if you wanna post it to me I can convert it for you.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:53
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
From: liz williams
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied
> everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was
> a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read
> that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
I've got one - if you wanna post it to me I can convert it for you.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 20:54:05
Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff. I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in WWI, and he never really knew where.
On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
> large!!!!!
There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
We are the little folk, we,
Too little to love or to hate:
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can bring down the state.
On Mar 14, 2013, at 2:25 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
> large!!!!!
There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
We are the little folk, we,
Too little to love or to hate:
Leave us alone and you'll see
How we can bring down the state.
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 21:00:08
Oh Eileen, you have made my day today.
On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> ý
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago.ý There are records.
> ý
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there.ý The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can'tý even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> ý
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well.ýýý When I worked for John who used to beýýý Surveyor atýýý the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury)ýýý he wasýýý responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or ýýý working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey andýýý at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb.ýýý (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!).ýýý It alsoýýý meant being involved ýýý the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them.ýýý I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ýýý
> > ýýý Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it.ýýý I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ýýý
> > Liz
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ýýý
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > ýýýýýýýý
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> ý
> I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago.ý There are records.
> ý
> I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there.ý The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can'tý even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
>
> ý
> Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well.ýýý When I worked for John who used to beýýý Surveyor atýýý the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury)ýýý he wasýýý responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or ýýý working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey andýýý at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb.ýýý (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!).ýýý It alsoýýý meant being involved ýýý the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them.ýýý I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > ýýý
> > ýýý Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it.ýýý I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > ýýý
> > Liz
> >
> > ýýý
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > ýýý
> > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > [snip]
> > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > ýýýýýýýý
> > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> >
> > Carol
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-14 21:08:33
No dont Pamela...Its wicked to laugh..Big Ern and Little Urn..:0)
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have made my day today.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > Â
> > I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> > Â
> > I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> > Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> > Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > > ÂÂ
> > >  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> Oh Eileen, you have made my day today.
>
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 3:33 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> If my memory serves me correct I have a vague recollection that it was somewhere near where her husbands lies...you know...the husband in the Urn...the brother-in-law is in the Urn with him....thats a lot of family members in one Urn...Eileen
>
> --- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > When I worked there the Archaeologist (they have one of those too ) did a report on various graves they found under the floor - how I wish I'd kept a copy!
> > Â
> > I would have thought it would be quite easy to find out where Anne is since it was only 50 odd years ago. There are records.
> > Â
> > I cannot tell you just "how" much I wish I'd scanned or photocopied everything in John's files while I worked there. The only thing I had was a report about the Cosmati Pavement on a floppy disk (and can't even read that now, nobody has floppy disks drives anymore)
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@>
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:24
> > Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> > Liz..I wonder where they buried Anne Mowbray....that was in the 1950s...Eileen
> >
> > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > >
> > > It means the fabric of the building and that includes what's inside it as well. When I worked for John who used to be Surveyor at the Abbey (and still is I think at Canterbury) he was responsible for conservation and restoration whether it was checking where the building was crumbling and working out how to fix that or  working with others on things like the Cosmati pavement at the Abbey and at Canterbury the restoration of the Tester over the Black Prince's Tomb. (The highlight of my job was climbing on the scaffolding over that Tomb so I could get a look at what they were doing!). It also meant being involved  the design of any new memorials etc, helping choose the person who did the work and liaising with them. I've just realised I've written a brief job spec!
> > > ÂÂ
> > >  Obviously there haven't been new tombs at the Abbey for a long time but if Leicester had a Surveyor then he or she would be involved in the work on Richard's tomb/memorial whatever you want to call it. I did a search but couldn't find anything about a current Surveyor a Leicester, only someone who used to have that job.
> > > ÂÂ
> > > Liz
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com<http://40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 17:36
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ÂÂ
> > > liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > > > Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
> > > > ÂÂÂ
> > > > Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
> > >
> > > Carol responds:
> > >
> > > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric is a piece of cloth.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 22:36:26
It's in a lot of recent books- including the Baldwin one I was referring to much earlier. The costume is too old for the period, it's an empty tomb and it's felt that, given the constant threats of invasion, Richard may have concealed the real grave to bury the boy later. H
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
Can't remember - someone will know. I think it was in The Ricardian, it's too early for one thing (and empty for another I think0
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:26
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
Can't remember - someone will know. I think it was in The Ricardian, it's too early for one thing (and empty for another I think0
________________________________
From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:26
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>
Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
When was this established and how?
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-14 22:37:29
They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> Â
> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
>
> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>
> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>
> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> Â
> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
>
> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>
> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>
> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 23:00:46
He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>
> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>
> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-14 23:08:00
That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: dishonorable
He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>
> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
Subject: Re: dishonorable
He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>
> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>
> Eileen
>
>
> --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> >
> > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > >
> > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Gird the small fish
2013-03-14 23:54:38
*shakes head*
All right, I'm seeing a school of small fish swimming in large diapers, here...
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish, in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird large!!!!!
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Thanks for that Liz we need as many names we can get. Now this is a very personal thing I am going to say and will count for nought as I am only a little fish in a big pond...but with respect...and I dont wish to cause offence to Leicester Cathedral..not my intent at all...BUT if as they say they do not have the room for the type of monument that, and I believe I can say, the vast majority of Ricardians believe that Richard deserves, then they should simply not have him at all. Simple as that. It would bring them no shame to be honest and give out that they do not have the room that is needed. The cathedral did start life as a parish church after all. I (personal again) dearly would love to see Richard go to somewhere where he is very welcome/and has the space to give him said monument/does not see it as a problem. Where this place may be...and I have changed my stance here because of what I have read has made me unhappy about him going to Leicester
now...even with a more suitable tomb..York...I am crossing my fingers here and hoping desperately that York can now come up with something...Eileen...loins girded
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> People to write to could include
>> Â
>> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
>> Â
>> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
>> Â
>> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p.
5.
>>
>> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>> Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.) Â
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
All right, I'm seeing a school of small fish swimming in large diapers, here...
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 2:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish, in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird large!!!!!
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 12:58 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...<mailto:cherryripe.eileenb@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
>Thanks for that Liz we need as many names we can get. Now this is a very personal thing I am going to say and will count for nought as I am only a little fish in a big pond...but with respect...and I dont wish to cause offence to Leicester Cathedral..not my intent at all...BUT if as they say they do not have the room for the type of monument that, and I believe I can say, the vast majority of Ricardians believe that Richard deserves, then they should simply not have him at all. Simple as that. It would bring them no shame to be honest and give out that they do not have the room that is needed. The cathedral did start life as a parish church after all. I (personal again) dearly would love to see Richard go to somewhere where he is very welcome/and has the space to give him said monument/does not see it as a problem. Where this place may be...and I have changed my stance here because of what I have read has made me unhappy about him going to Leicester
now...even with a more suitable tomb..York...I am crossing my fingers here and hoping desperately that York can now come up with something...Eileen...loins girded
>
>--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> People to write to could include
>> Â
>> Rt Hon Frank Field MP
>> Â
>> Revd Mandy Ford is Chair of Leicester Cathedral Fabric Advisory Committee.
>> Â
>> Cathedrals usually have a Surveyor of the Fabric (an architect responsible for the building) but it looks as though Leicester doesn't have one.
>>
>>
>> Carol responds:
>>
>> I can't find any indication of the author(s) of the brief. However, since "The Cathedral Chapter are the commissioning body for this work [the memorial to Richard]," I suspect that they are the people to contact. Also, "they" state that "they will be working in partnership with Leicester City Council, the Mayor's Office, the University of Leicester (as the license holder) and consulting with the Richard III Society and other interested bodies regarding the placing and design of the grave within the context of the cathedral, cathedral gardens and the wider city" and "Any design is subject to the recommendation of the Fabric Advisory Committee (FAC) and the approval Cathedral Fabric Commission for England (CFCE)," p. 4. The RIII Society is mentioned again at the bottom of the page: "Additional advice is already being sought from the Richard III Society and nationally recognised experts on medieval burial rites, iconography, literature and the arts," p.
5.
>>
>> Given that they are trying to be fair and objective (despite an obviously limited understanding of Richard III) but also to express their own needs and concerns, I would hope that any correspondence addressed to them would also be fair and objective. Accusing them of "character assassination" will not help.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be better to express concerns to Philippa, J A-H, or Dr. Phil Stone? Maybe even HRH, the Duke of Gloucester?
>>
>> Carol
>>
>>
>> Secretary of State Department for Culture Media and Sport) is a member of the CFCE so worth writing too (youc an get his e mail easily on the internet.) Â
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 00:00:05
Cool! Here's a link to a copy:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>> large!!!!!
>
>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>
>We are the little folk, we,
>Too little to love or to hate:
>Leave us alone and you'll see
>How we can bring down the state.
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>> large!!!!!
>
>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>
>We are the little folk, we,
>Too little to love or to hate:
>Leave us alone and you'll see
>How we can bring down the state.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 00:04:34
I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> >
> > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> >
> > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-15 00:06:06
Maybe the same way we, for so long, lost Richard.
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:29 PM
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 01:13:29
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...>
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for. People think now
that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was an early
proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather jaundiced view of
the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction "Government of
India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been interesting. He
wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are sympathetic to them but
very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in measure" (and, in
a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with a rusty sword he
found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million miles from some of
the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her as haunted by the
ghosts of her victims.
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A Pict Song was set
to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
> I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in WWI, and he never
> really knew where.
No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the Battle of Loos,
poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's brother, also died. I
remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran was a close
colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same company of which
Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George spent 26 years
in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second Boer War and at
Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that time was a nasty
blister on his foot when he was in training.
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for. People think now
that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was an early
proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather jaundiced view of
the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction "Government of
India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been interesting. He
wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are sympathetic to them but
very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in measure" (and, in
a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with a rusty sword he
found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million miles from some of
the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her as haunted by the
ghosts of her victims.
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A Pict Song was set
to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
> I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in WWI, and he never
> really knew where.
No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the Battle of Loos,
poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's brother, also died. I
remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran was a close
colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same company of which
Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George spent 26 years
in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second Boer War and at
Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that time was a nasty
blister on his foot when he was in training.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 05:18:46
Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how very much there yet to learn. My short time on this site has opened windows on a world I had been interested in, but I know NOW how very little I actually knew, and how much more I need to read, re-read and study.
On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Sheffe" <shethra77@...<mailto:shethra77@...>> wrote:
Cool! Here's a link to a copy:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
>To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>> large!!!!!
>
>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>
>We are the little folk, we,
>Too little to love or to hate:
>Leave us alone and you'll see
>How we can bring down the state.
>
>
>
>
>
On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Sheffe" <shethra77@...<mailto:shethra77@...>> wrote:
Cool! Here's a link to a copy:
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
>To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>> large!!!!!
>
>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>
>We are the little folk, we,
>Too little to love or to hate:
>Leave us alone and you'll see
>How we can bring down the state.
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-15 09:22:44
In my view the Henry VII Chapel is a wonderful Monument to 'Craftsmanship' Taking a Pop at it is a bit like 'Shooting the Messenger'. I imagine that 'Our Enery' was long gone when it was completed.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 09:33:34
From: Pamela Bain
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> very much there yet to learn.
But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> very much there yet to learn.
But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 09:52:06
Personally, as one who spent a life in education, I would go for the VC or the Pro-VC in charge of the Faculty of Archeaology - the Registrar is not in charge of the Dept of Archealogy and even if the VC just shuffles it on, as he will, he'll know it's going on from a pure nuisance factor. But I leave it to people to decide. Both my husband and I signed the York petition months' ago because we felt he should be where he is very truly valued, and, as much as we can guess, where he wants to be. I kept an open mind on Leicester though, until all this broke, but I don't want to see it deteriorate into a fight to secure a cash cow which is where Leicester, with very little affection from the Cathedral, is heading. Just because they named a street after him doesn't mean they love him. The Society supplied the rest. I could as happily see him fitfully interred in some lovely country church; I suggested Dadlington before. A country church was not too mean
for Churchill. And if we go for somewhere less large than York then perhaps we need to re-consider something as large as a table tomb; I'm sure modern ingenuity could come up with something which is both simple but dazzling.
That's my twopenneth, for what it's worth. H
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 0:04
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> >
> > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
for Churchill. And if we go for somewhere less large than York then perhaps we need to re-consider something as large as a table tomb; I'm sure modern ingenuity could come up with something which is both simple but dazzling.
That's my twopenneth, for what it's worth. H
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 0:04
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> >
> > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> >
> > Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > >
> > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-15 09:55:33
A Brave Man & Monarch [Who incidentally was the LAST king to fight, As Duke of York he was at Jutland.]
He 'Triumphed' over his 'Disability' as did Richard.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
He 'Triumphed' over his 'Disability' as did Richard.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-15 10:13:53
Yes, I have a great admiration for him and I actually find his very simple tomb with its poem the most moving.
________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 9:55
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
A Brave Man & Monarch [Who incidentally was the LAST king to fight, As Duke of York he was at Jutland.]
He 'Triumphed' over his 'Disability' as did Richard.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: Arthurian <lancastrian@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 9:55
Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
A Brave Man & Monarch [Who incidentally was the LAST king to fight, As Duke of York he was at Jutland.]
He 'Triumphed' over his 'Disability' as did Richard.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: ">
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 22:37
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>They lost George VI in a corridor for years at Windsor. They apparently found him parked there.
>
>________________________________
>From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 20:29
>Subject: Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
>
>
>
>
>No..noone knows...only speculation...York has been mentioned...so has Coverham Abbey, near Middleham....How can you lose a Prince of Wales?...Eileen
>
>--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>>
>> But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
>> Â
>> I totally agree about the Abbey BTW.Â
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: pansydobersby <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:33
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> >
>>
>> I actually rather suspect he had plans for a family mausoleum St George's Chapel in Windsor, to emphasise continuity. After all, he had Henry VI moved there; and obviously Edward IV was there and planned to have his family buried there. My gut feeling is that Richard was planning an even bigger family mausoleum to include himself and his future family, and would probably have had Anne and Edward of Middleham eventually reburied there as well. Of course Anne was already suitably situated in Westminster Abbey, but as we don't even know where exactly she is nowadays, it doesn't seem like the burial place was carefully considered or meant to be forever. But even if it was, I very much doubt Richard intended to leave his son in Sheriff Hutton. It's an unlikely place for a Prince of Wales.
>>
>> But had Richard lived longer, he would have been a different man in different circumstances and his posthumous history would have been totally different as well. Somehow I feel that after everything that has had happened after 1485, it wouldn't feel 'right' to bury him in either Westminster Abbey or Windsor - but that's just me. Not because he doesn't deserve to be there, but because with all the subsequent history and the royal families that came after him and the centuries-long blackening of his reputation, they don't deserve to have him there. If that makes sense at all. ;)
>>
>> (And anyway I very much doubt the current royals would even have him there. Well, their loss, says I.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 10:44:17
The Parish Church @ Middleton in Lancashire has a large number of 'Monumental Brasses' to various generations of the Assheton Family. [A Great Many called 'Ralph!!]
The Brasses are interesting as you can trace the 'Evolution' of Armour as well as a Family over a period of time..
A Later Ralph Assheton was second in command of the Cromwellian Forces in Lancashire and one of Cromwell's 'Major Generals'.
This is the ONLY Brass to a 'Major General' known to survive.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 18:29
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>Claire, Aha! Very interesting. Thank you.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>www.ishitabandyo.com
>www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>> From: Ishita Bandyo
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> > Who is Assheton?
>>
>> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
>> Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
>> supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
>> while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
>> servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>>
>> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
>> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
>> to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
>> Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
>> black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
>> which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
>>
>> He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
>> contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
>> Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
>> traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
>> who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
>> tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
>> barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
>>
>> However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
>> him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
>> in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
>> from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
>> so.
>>
>> His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
>> which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
>> executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
>> brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
>> Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
>> supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
>> explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
>> opposed to punitive taxation.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Brasses are interesting as you can trace the 'Evolution' of Armour as well as a Family over a period of time..
A Later Ralph Assheton was second in command of the Cromwellian Forces in Lancashire and one of Cromwell's 'Major Generals'.
This is the ONLY Brass to a 'Major General' known to survive.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Ishita Bandyo <bandyoi@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 18:29
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>Claire, Aha! Very interesting. Thank you.
>
>Ishita Bandyo
>www.ishitabandyo.com
>www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
>www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 1:36 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>> From: Ishita Bandyo
>> To:
>> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:01 PM
>> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> > Who is Assheton?
>>
>> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
>> Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
>> supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
>> while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s
>> servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>>
>> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
>> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed
>> to be based on Assheton, although at least one 18th C source says the Black
>> Lad was Assheton's father against whom nothong is known except that he wore
>> black a lot. Ralph also wore black and had a brother who was an alchemist,
>> which must have added to his dodgy reputation.
>>
>> He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
>> contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
>> Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
>> traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
>> who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
>> tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
>> barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
>>
>> However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
>> him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
>> in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
>> from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
>> so.
>>
>> His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
>> which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
>> executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
>> brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
>> Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
>> supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
>> explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
>> opposed to punitive taxation.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 10:57:42
It may well be that this 'Sir Ralph Assheton' [who was a major player in the Tower] & of course ANY activities regarding Edward's Sons. Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:03
>Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
>> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>>
>> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
>> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed to be based on Assheton [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary. "The axe of the Tower, and Sir Ralph Assheton" must refer to Assheton's position as Richard's vice constable. He tried and was responsible for the execution of Buckingham, since Buckingham, the constable, could not try himself. Anyone under the delusion that Buckingham was an innocent victim could view this action as a "crime." Assheton was also, as you may have mentioned, sheriff of Yorkshire and a knight of the body to Richard. Whether he was at Bosworth, I don't know. He is variously reported to have died in 1484 and 1486.
>
>This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Ashton
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
>To:
>Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 19:03
>Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>"Claire M Jordan" wrote:
>
>> Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard;s servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York.
>>
>> The village where Assheton hjad and I think still has a traditional
>> celebration involving a bpgeyman figure called the Black Lad who is believed to be based on Assheton [snip]
>
>Carol responds:
>
>Just one more comment to supplement this excellent summary. "The axe of the Tower, and Sir Ralph Assheton" must refer to Assheton's position as Richard's vice constable. He tried and was responsible for the execution of Buckingham, since Buckingham, the constable, could not try himself. Anyone under the delusion that Buckingham was an innocent victim could view this action as a "crime." Assheton was also, as you may have mentioned, sheriff of Yorkshire and a knight of the body to Richard. Whether he was at Bosworth, I don't know. He is variously reported to have died in 1484 and 1486.
>
>This Wikipedia entry, which spells his name Ralph de Ashton, describes the "black knight" legend. I doubt very much that it has any basis in fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_de_Ashton
>
>Carol
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 11:52:06
Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > >
> > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> >
> > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > >
> > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > >
> > > Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 12:29:09
OMG you know what can happen to little fish dont you...they end up fried...Still not to worry...onwards and upwards...we laugh in the face of danger etc. etc. etc., Eileen
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > very much there yet to learn.
>
> But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > very much there yet to learn.
>
> But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 12:36:49
A couple of choruses of 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'!
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:29
Subject: Re: dishonorable
OMG you know what can happen to little fish dont you...they end up fried...Still not to worry...onwards and upwards...we laugh in the face of danger etc. etc. etc., Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > very much there yet to learn.
>
> But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
>
________________________________
From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:29
Subject: Re: dishonorable
OMG you know what can happen to little fish dont you...they end up fried...Still not to worry...onwards and upwards...we laugh in the face of danger etc. etc. etc., Eileen
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: Pamela Bain
> To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > very much there yet to learn.
>
> But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:07:46
I think Hilary suggested the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor -
Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Off topic, Kipling
2013-03-15 13:13:52
Claire, that is so interesting about Kipling and your great grandfather. Indeed you have a colorful family. I hope you write a book about them!
On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for. People think now
that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was an early
proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather jaundiced view of
the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction "Government of
India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been interesting. He
wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are sympathetic to them but
very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in measure" (and, in
a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with a rusty sword he
found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million miles from some of
the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her as haunted by the
ghosts of her victims.
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A Pict Song was set
to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
> I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in WWI, and he never
> really knew where.
No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the Battle of Loos,
poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's brother, also died. I
remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran was a close
colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same company of which
Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George spent 26 years
in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second Boer War and at
Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that time was a nasty
blister on his foot when he was in training.
On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for. People think now
that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was an early
proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather jaundiced view of
the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction "Government of
India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been interesting. He
wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are sympathetic to them but
very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in measure" (and, in
a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with a rusty sword he
found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million miles from some of
the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her as haunted by the
ghosts of her victims.
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A Pict Song was set
to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
> I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in WWI, and he never
> really knew where.
No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the Battle of Loos,
poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's brother, also died. I
remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran was a close
colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same company of which
Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George spent 26 years
in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second Boer War and at
Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that time was a nasty
blister on his foot when he was in training.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:15:28
For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
addresses --
The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
addresses --
The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
<cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
> **
>
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:15:40
Good idea - as long as we keep it polite, which I know we will, it's important to show strength of feelings. Registrars are often very tied up in the day to day and may understandably want to pass it down the ranks. It would be nice if we could get it to the Uni's Governing Body. I couldn't find their details on the web. A lot of colleges/unis publish details of their Members.
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:07
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I think Hilary suggested the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor -
Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 13:07
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I think Hilary suggested the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor -
Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > >
> > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > >
> > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > >
> > > > Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:18:56
Love it.!...:0) Eileen
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AÂ couple of choruses of 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'!Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:29
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> Â
>
> OMG you know what can happen to little fish dont you...they end up fried...Still not to worry...onwards and upwards...we laugh in the face of danger etc. etc. etc., Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> > > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > > very much there yet to learn.
> >
> > But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> > probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> > intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> > wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> > and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AÂ couple of choruses of 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'!Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: EileenB <cherryripe.eileenb@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 12:29
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> Â
>
> OMG you know what can happen to little fish dont you...they end up fried...Still not to worry...onwards and upwards...we laugh in the face of danger etc. etc. etc., Eileen
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@> wrote:
> >
> > From: Pamela Bain
> > To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> >
> > > Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> > > think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> > > shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> > > and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> > > mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> > > very much there yet to learn.
> >
> > But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
> > probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
> > intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
> > wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
> > and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
More OT
2013-03-15 13:22:30
True, but in any cases, the artists and musicians do not know their impact, until later, or never.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:14 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: Pamela Bain
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> very much there yet to learn.
But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:14 AM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>> wrote:
From: Pamela Bain
To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I
> think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and
> shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older
> and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you
> mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how
> very much there yet to learn.
But the "movers and shakers" in that poem were musicians and dreamers (which
probably includes scientists and inventors) - it's saying that art and
intellect and ideas determine how the world goes more than politicians and
wars do. Insofar as it's talking about big fish and little fish his movers
and shakers would probably be considered little fish.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:29:12
Good...this is useful....we need all the help we can get...Eileen
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think Hilary suggested the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor -
>
>
> Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
> Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
> Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
>
> I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I think Hilary suggested the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor -
>
>
> Professor Sir Robert Burgess (Vice-Chancellor - vc@...)
> Professor Mark Thompson (Pro Vice-Chancellor - mpt3@...)
> Professor Kevin Schürer (Pro-Vice-Chancellor with special responsibility for Research and Enterprise - ks291@...)
>
> I wrote to the registrar but I might copy these folk in on my letter so that it definitely goes to the right person.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni! .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location; it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" - they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela" <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:46:46
Pansy Dobersby wrote:
//snip//
"Like I said before - it's the context that makes the paragraph insulting
because it brings in implications that wouldn't be there if the paragraph
were on its own, in a different context. Sure, he was a flawed human being -
but so was every single monarch with a grand memorial in Westminster Abbey,
so that really shouldn't enter into this discussion at all, *unless* they're
referring to something in particular (other than 'being human') that makes
Richard undeserving of a bigger monument."
Doug here:
For what it's worth, I tend to thnk that "something in particular" is the
general impression that five hundred years of falsehoods about Richard have
left behind.
I seriously doubt anyone at the Cathedral rushed out and started researching
Richard when the discovery was made. Even if someone did, what if that
person had gotten Hick's volume, the one where he accuses Richard of "serial
incest"? Or any wrok that relies on More? Then there's the lasting effects
of Master Shakespeare's play...
Doug
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
//snip//
"Like I said before - it's the context that makes the paragraph insulting
because it brings in implications that wouldn't be there if the paragraph
were on its own, in a different context. Sure, he was a flawed human being -
but so was every single monarch with a grand memorial in Westminster Abbey,
so that really shouldn't enter into this discussion at all, *unless* they're
referring to something in particular (other than 'being human') that makes
Richard undeserving of a bigger monument."
Doug here:
For what it's worth, I tend to thnk that "something in particular" is the
general impression that five hundred years of falsehoods about Richard have
left behind.
I seriously doubt anyone at the Cathedral rushed out and started researching
Richard when the discovery was made. Even if someone did, what if that
person had gotten Hick's volume, the one where he accuses Richard of "serial
incest"? Or any wrok that relies on More? Then there's the lasting effects
of Master Shakespeare's play...
Doug
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 13:52:40
Claire M Jordan wrote:
"Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard's
servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York."
//snip//
"He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
so.
His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
opposed to punitive taxation."
Doug here:
Would Richard have been in a position to mitigate some of Sir Ralph's
rulings? If not, perhaps the inability to do so was the basis for Richard's
opposition?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
"Sir Ralph de Assheton, a major landowner in the north, a loyal supporter of
Richard and reputed to have been a personal friend of his, which is
supported by the fact that we see Assheton acting as a kind of policeman
while Richard was Duke at Middleham, and escorting to court one of Richard's
servants who had been accused of beating up a citizen of York."
//snip//
"He certainly did *have* a dodgy reputation - there's a contemporary or near
contemporary rhyme asking "save us from the axe of the Tower, and from Sir
Ralph de Assheton". Stories collected in I think the Victorian era record
traditions of him riding round his lands at Easter and punishing any tenants
who let corn-cockles grow in their fields, and report him as a monstrous
tyrant who killed tenants randomly in cruel ways - being rolled ownhill in a
barrel studded with knives was mentioned.
However, a collection of Lancashire traditions done in the 18th C refers to
him only as an overbearing man who extracted harsh taxes, and portrays him
in fact acting well and returning death duties which he had previously taken
from a poor widow - albeit only after being publicly embarrassed into doing
so.
His evil reputation *may* have come about only because he held a position
which meant that in emergencies he had the right to be judge, jury and
executioner, and because his habit of dressing in black and his alchemical
brother have caused him to become fused with local traditions about the
Devil. Nevertheless he does have a horrible reputation and he was a staunch
supporter and probable friend of Richard's, so he requires some
explanation - especially as Richard himself seems to have been strongly
opposed to punitive taxation."
Doug here:
Would Richard have been in a position to mitigate some of Sir Ralph's
rulings? If not, perhaps the inability to do so was the basis for Richard's
opposition?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 14:38:38
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> A couple of choruses of 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'!
But that's a very bloody depressing song, if you actually listen to the
lyrics....
There's this thing called a filk-song, which is the result of an
immortalised typing error. Filks are the songs sung by science-fiction and
fantasy fen, and also work-songs for the high tech generation. One of the
greatest exponents of the filk song is a half-Native-American singer called
Leslie Fish. She's a bit of a nutcase (I've met her!) and a rampant
Survivalist and gun freak, but she's a wonderful singer. In the 1970s or
80s she wrote a song about the moon-landings. The verses go to the tune
"The Bonny Ship the Diamond", but the chorus is a variant on a traditional
verse based on the preamble to the constitution of the United Mineworkers
of America:
Step by step the longest march
Can be won, can be won,
Many stones can form an arch,
Singly none, singly none;
And together what we will
Can be accomplished still:
Many drops can turn a mill,
Singly none, singly none.
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 12:36 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> A couple of choruses of 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life'!
But that's a very bloody depressing song, if you actually listen to the
lyrics....
There's this thing called a filk-song, which is the result of an
immortalised typing error. Filks are the songs sung by science-fiction and
fantasy fen, and also work-songs for the high tech generation. One of the
greatest exponents of the filk song is a half-Native-American singer called
Leslie Fish. She's a bit of a nutcase (I've met her!) and a rampant
Survivalist and gun freak, but she's a wonderful singer. In the 1970s or
80s she wrote a song about the moon-landings. The verses go to the tune
"The Bonny Ship the Diamond", but the chorus is a variant on a traditional
verse based on the preamble to the constitution of the United Mineworkers
of America:
Step by step the longest march
Can be won, can be won,
Many stones can form an arch,
Singly none, singly none;
And together what we will
Can be accomplished still:
Many drops can turn a mill,
Singly none, singly none.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 15:47:02
York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
jeremy.wright.mp@...
I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> addresses --
>
> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
jeremy.wright.mp@...
I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> addresses --
>
> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 16:12:02
I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: dishonorable
York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
jeremy.wright.mp@...
I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> addresses --
>
> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
Subject: Re: dishonorable
York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
jeremy.wright.mp@...
I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> addresses --
>
> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> <cherryripe.eileenb@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > unhelpful.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > not "own" them.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > monument to
> > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
Re: Sheriff Hutton (was dishonourable)
2013-03-15 16:32:35
liz williams wrote:
> >
> > But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> >
>
pansydobersby responded:
> Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
>
> When was this established and how?
Carol responds:
All I know is that the tomb at Sheriff Hutton is a cenotaph (meaning that it's empty), and it's from the wrong era (too early, IIRC). My guess is that Edward of Middleham was buried at--Middleham--but, if so, no one has found his tomb.
If you have access to the Ricardian, perhaps through a university library, there's an article called "Report: The Sheriff Hutton Monument to Edward, Prince of Wales, 1484-5" by P. L. Harrison (volume 7, issue 94, September 1986, pp. 293-294), which may contain the revelation that the "monument to Edward, Prince of Wales" is no such thing. (I don't have the article, so I don't know what it says.)
Carol
> >
> > But no one knows where Edward is do they? The tomb at Sheriff Hutton is now known not to have been his so where is he? Does anyone know where he was actually put in the first place?
> >
>
pansydobersby responded:
> Really?? Damn. How did this pass me by? Haven't been paying attention... eek.
>
> When was this established and how?
Carol responds:
All I know is that the tomb at Sheriff Hutton is a cenotaph (meaning that it's empty), and it's from the wrong era (too early, IIRC). My guess is that Edward of Middleham was buried at--Middleham--but, if so, no one has found his tomb.
If you have access to the Ricardian, perhaps through a university library, there's an article called "Report: The Sheriff Hutton Monument to Edward, Prince of Wales, 1484-5" by P. L. Harrison (volume 7, issue 94, September 1986, pp. 293-294), which may contain the revelation that the "monument to Edward, Prince of Wales" is no such thing. (I don't have the article, so I don't know what it says.)
Carol
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-15 16:40:45
liz williams wrote:
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 17:39:17
The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
I am reeling at this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
I am reeling at this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-15 17:43:24
Dunno but Brotherton is a place in Yorkshire.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
liz williams wrote:
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
liz williams wrote:
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 17:49:06
Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>
> Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>
> They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>
> They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
>
> They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>
> ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
>
> I am reeling at this.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > jeremy.wright.mp@
> >
> > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> >
> > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > addresses --
> > >
> > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > > monument to
> > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>
> Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>
> They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>
> They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
>
> They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>
> ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
>
> I am reeling at this.
>
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > jeremy.wright.mp@
> >
> > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> >
> > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> >
> > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > addresses --
> > >
> > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > > monument to
> > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 17:50:01
I think we have to ask like Christine, where is the Society in this?
But: Leicester CC could give permission for a dig: they could not in Law say where the bones should be interred. Methinks the Society may need legal help on this. It's a case which should be easily won as the Council and the Uni have clearly exceeded their authority.
It is very cross-making though and all the more so because legal wrangling starts to bring the whole thing into disrepute
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:39
Subject: Re: dishonorable
The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
I am reeling at this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
But: Leicester CC could give permission for a dig: they could not in Law say where the bones should be interred. Methinks the Society may need legal help on this. It's a case which should be easily won as the Council and the Uni have clearly exceeded their authority.
It is very cross-making though and all the more so because legal wrangling starts to bring the whole thing into disrepute
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:39
Subject: Re: dishonorable
The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
I am reeling at this.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 17:50:40
Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> >
> > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> >
> > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> churchyard.
> >
> > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> >
> > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> proviso of the dig going ahead?
> >
> > I am reeling at this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> Leicester burialý to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> I'd add).ý
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > >
> > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > >
> > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> individuals
> > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > addresses --
> > > >
> > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> to write
> > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> location for
> > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> - the
> > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> person to
> > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> encouraged
> > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> location;
> > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> place for
> > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> tomb of
> > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> only
> > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> the terms
> > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> the first
> > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> us round
> > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> have now
> > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> authority
> > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> made out
> > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> the choice
> > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> "belong" to
> > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> "property" -
> > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> University do
> > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> the
> > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> remains
> > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> through
> > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> York
> > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> Speculation of
> > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> until
> > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> people of
> > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> gone
> > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> for the
> > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> the
> > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> doesn't
> > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> could go to
> > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> would've
> > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> deny his
> > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> suggested
> > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> been
> > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> for me
> > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> that
> > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> untenable. Not
> > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> corner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> I said
> > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> Leicester
> > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> with those
> > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> pansydobersby
> > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> a grand
> > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> >
> > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> >
> > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> churchyard.
> >
> > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> >
> > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> proviso of the dig going ahead?
> >
> > I am reeling at this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> Leicester burialý to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> I'd add).ý
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > ý
> > >
> > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > >
> > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > >
> > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> individuals
> > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > addresses --
> > > >
> > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> to write
> > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> location for
> > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> - the
> > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> person to
> > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> encouraged
> > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> location;
> > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> place for
> > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> tomb of
> > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> only
> > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> the terms
> > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> the first
> > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> us round
> > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> have now
> > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> authority
> > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> made out
> > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> the choice
> > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> "belong" to
> > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> "property" -
> > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> University do
> > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> the
> > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> remains
> > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> through
> > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> York
> > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> Speculation of
> > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> until
> > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> people of
> > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> gone
> > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> for the
> > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> the
> > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> doesn't
> > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> could go to
> > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> would've
> > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> deny his
> > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> suggested
> > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> been
> > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> for me
> > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> that
> > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> untenable. Not
> > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> corner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> I said
> > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> Leicester
> > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> with those
> > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> pansydobersby
> > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> a grand
> > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:13:54
From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
well wait for a year or two.
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
well wait for a year or two.
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:15:13
A family who were ancestors of the Mowbray and Howard families - like the Bigods. The brother of Edward II, indeed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
Dunno but Brotherton is a place in Yorkshire.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
liz williams wrote:
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
----- Original Message -----
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
Dunno but Brotherton is a place in Yorkshire.
________________________________
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 16:40
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
liz williams wrote:
>
> From the Abbey website
> Â [snip]
> At the top are incised the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray.
Carol responds:
"Coat of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York"? Who or what is Brotherton, and what does it/he have to do with Edward IV's second son?
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:31:12
AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> >
> > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> >
> > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> churchyard.
> >
> > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> >
> > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> proviso of the dig going ahead?
> >
> > I am reeling at this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> I'd add).Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > >
> > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > >
> > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> individuals
> > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > addresses --
> > > >
> > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> to write
> > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> location for
> > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> - the
> > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> person to
> > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> encouraged
> > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> location;
> > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> place for
> > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> tomb of
> > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> only
> > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> the terms
> > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> the first
> > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> us round
> > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> have now
> > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> authority
> > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> made out
> > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> the choice
> > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> "belong" to
> > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> "property" -
> > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> University do
> > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> the
> > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> remains
> > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> through
> > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> York
> > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> Speculation of
> > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> until
> > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> people of
> > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> gone
> > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> for the
> > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> the
> > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> doesn't
> > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> could go to
> > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> would've
> > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> deny his
> > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> suggested
> > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> been
> > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> for me
> > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> that
> > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> untenable. Not
> > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> corner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> I said
> > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> Leicester
> > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> with those
> > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> pansydobersby
> > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> a grand
> > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> wrote:
> **
>
>
> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> >
> > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> >
> > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> >
> > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> churchyard.
> >
> > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> >
> > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> proviso of the dig going ahead?
> >
> > I am reeling at this.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> I'd add).Â
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Â
> > >
> > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > >
> > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > >
> > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > >
> > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> individuals
> > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > addresses --
> > > >
> > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > **
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> <no_reply@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> to write
> > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> location for
> > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> - the
> > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> person to
> > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> encouraged
> > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> location;
> > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> place for
> > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> tomb of
> > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> only
> > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> the terms
> > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> the first
> > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> us round
> > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> have now
> > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ã
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> authority
> > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> made out
> > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> the choice
> > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> "belong" to
> > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> "property" -
> > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> University do
> > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> the
> > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> remains
> > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> through
> > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> York
> > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> Speculation of
> > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> until
> > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> people of
> > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> gone
> > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> for the
> > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> the
> > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> doesn't
> > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> could go to
> > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> would've
> > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> deny his
> > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> suggested
> > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> been
> > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> for me
> > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> that
> > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> untenable. Not
> > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> corner.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> I said
> > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> Leicester
> > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> with those
> > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> pansydobersby
> > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> a grand
> > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:42:12
I agree that some communication from the RIII Society is desireable, since
this group is billed as "their" forum. (Although I've sent in my
membership to the American branch, it seems that my check has gone astray,
so I can't count myself as a member yet).
On the other hand, I'd hate to see us continue to discuss the re-interment
issue here, with no further action taken until it's too late to possibly
have any impact. That's all I meant to say.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the
> Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester
> 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an
> agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn
> into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you
> out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's
> perspective? H
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <
> cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@
> ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English
> Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral
> was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be
> in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities
> insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burialý to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the
> Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will
> they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to
> the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we
> can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against
> him
> > I'd add).ý
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > ý
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which
> looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is,
> even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may
> be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned
> parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased
> so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard
> <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional
> e-mail
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider
> this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will
> send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is
> not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily
> Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of
> Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard
> had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now,
> I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel
> badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there
> for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one
> can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical
> fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
this group is billed as "their" forum. (Although I've sent in my
membership to the American branch, it seems that my check has gone astray,
so I can't count myself as a member yet).
On the other hand, I'd hate to see us continue to discuss the re-interment
issue here, with no further action taken until it's too late to possibly
have any impact. That's all I meant to say.
A J
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the
> Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester
> 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an
> agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn
> into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you
> out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's
> perspective? H
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <
> cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
>
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@
> ...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English
> Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral
> was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be
> in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities
> insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
> >
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burialý to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the
> Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will
> they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to
> the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we
> can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against
> him
> > I'd add).ý
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > ý
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which
> looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is,
> even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may
> be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned
> parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased
> so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard
> <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider
> this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will
> send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is
> not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ýý
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily
> Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of
> Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard
> had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now,
> I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel
> badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there
> for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one
> can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical
> fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:45:25
And I guess, all of us on the US site need to join the UK Society.
On Mar 15, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> I agree that some communication from the RIII Society is desireable, since
> this group is billed as "their" forum. (Although I've sent in my
> membership to the American branch, it seems that my check has gone astray,
> so I can't count myself as a member yet).
>
> On the other hand, I'd hate to see us continue to discuss the re-interment
> issue here, with no further action taken until it's too late to possibly
> have any impact. That's all I meant to say.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the
>> Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester
>> 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an
>> agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn
>> into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you
>> out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's
>> perspective? H
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
>> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>
>> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>>
>> A J
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <
>> cfellinghamwebb@...
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
>>> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
>>> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
>>> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@
>> ...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
>>> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>>>>
>>>> Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
>>> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
>>> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English
>> Heritage
>>> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
>>> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
>>> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>>>>
>>>> They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral
>> was
>>> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
>>> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
>>> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
>>> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
>>> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
>>> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be
>> in
>>> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
>>> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>>>>
>>>> They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
>>> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
>>> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
>>> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities
>> insisting
>>> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
>>> churchyard.
>>>>
>>>> They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
>>> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>>>>
>>>> ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
>>> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
>>> proviso of the dig going ahead?
>>>>
>>>> I am reeling at this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
>>> Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the
>> Uni
>>> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will
>> they
>>> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
>>> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to
>> the
>>> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
>>> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we
>> can't
>>> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
>>> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against
>> him
>>> I'd add).Â
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
>>>>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>>>>
>>>>> Â
>>>>>
>>>>> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
>>>>> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
>>>>> jeremy.wright.mp@
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
>>> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which
>> looks
>>> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is,
>> even
>>> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
>>> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
>>> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may
>> be
>>> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned
>> parties -
>>> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
>>> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
>>> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased
>> so
>>> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
>>> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
>>> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , A J Hibbard
>> <ajhibbard@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
>>> individuals
>>>>>> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional
>> e-mail
>>>>>> addresses --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
>>>>>> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A J
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
>>>>>>> .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , colyngbourne
>>> <no_reply@>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
>>> to write
>>>>>>> and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
>>> location for
>>>>>>> Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider
>> this
>>> - the
>>>>>>> licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
>>> person to
>>>>>>> write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
>>> encouraged
>>>>>>> to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
>>> location;
>>>>>>> it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
>>> place for
>>>>>>> Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
>>> tomb of
>>>>>>> some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
>>> only
>>>>>>> institution with any discretion in this is the University under
>>> the terms
>>>>>>> of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
>>> the first
>>>>>>> instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will
>> send
>>> us round
>>>>>>> in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
>>> have now
>>>>>>> given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is
>> not
>>>>>>> unhelpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
>>> authority
>>>>>>> to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
>>> made out
>>>>>>> for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
>>> the choice
>>>>>>> (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
>>> "belong" to
>>>>>>> anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
>>> "property" -
>>>>>>> they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
>>> University do
>>>>>>> not "own" them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In , "EileenB"
>>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily
>> Mail..that
>>> the
>>>>>>> Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of
>> Richard's
>>> remains
>>>>>>> from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
>>> through
>>>>>>> treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard
>> had
>>>>>>> planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
>>> York
>>>>>>> Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
>>> Speculation of
>>>>>>> course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In , "Pamela"
>>>>>>> <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
>>> until
>>>>>>> now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
>>> people of
>>>>>>> Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now,
>> I've
>>> gone
>>>>>>> completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel
>> badly
>>> for the
>>>>>>> city and the people. According to my friend who was just there
>> for
>>> the
>>>>>>> conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
>>> could go to
>>>>>>> York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
>>> would've
>>>>>>> wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one
>> can
>>> deny his
>>>>>>> strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
>>> suggested
>>>>>>> here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
>>> been
>>>>>>> buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical
>> fact,
>>> for me
>>>>>>> the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
>>> that
>>>>>>> monument to
>>>>>>>>> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
>>> untenable. Not
>>>>>>> that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
>>> corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , "EileenB"
>>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
>>> I said
>>>>>>> in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
>>> Leicester
>>>>>>> idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
>>> with those
>>>>>>> ill-considered words....Eileen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In ,
>>> pansydobersby
>>>>>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
>>> a grand
>>>>>>> memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
On Mar 15, 2013, at 1:42 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> I agree that some communication from the RIII Society is desireable, since
> this group is billed as "their" forum. (Although I've sent in my
> membership to the American branch, it seems that my check has gone astray,
> so I can't count myself as a member yet).
>
> On the other hand, I'd hate to see us continue to discuss the re-interment
> issue here, with no further action taken until it's too late to possibly
> have any impact. That's all I meant to say.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the
>> Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester
>> 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an
>> agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn
>> into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you
>> out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's
>> perspective? H
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
>> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>
>> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>>
>> A J
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <
>> cfellinghamwebb@...
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
>>> all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
>>> the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
>>> high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@
>> ...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
>>> hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>>>>
>>>> Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
>>> broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
>>> case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English
>> Heritage
>>> Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
>>> made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
>>> released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>>>>
>>>> They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral
>> was
>>> agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
>>> was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
>>> national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
>>> The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
>>> interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
>>> descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be
>> in
>>> the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
>>> Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>>>>
>>>> They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
>>> keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
>>> unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
>>> missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities
>> insisting
>>> that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
>>> churchyard.
>>>>
>>>> They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
>>> excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>>>>
>>>> ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
>>> the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
>>> proviso of the dig going ahead?
>>>>
>>>> I am reeling at this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
>>> Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the
>> Uni
>>> propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will
>> they
>>> convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
>>> some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to
>> the
>>> Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
>>> this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we
>> can't
>>> complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
>>> hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against
>> him
>>> I'd add).Â
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>>>> To:
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
>>>>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>>>>
>>>>> Â
>>>>>
>>>>> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
>>>>> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
>>>>> jeremy.wright.mp@
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
>>> emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which
>> looks
>>> as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is,
>> even
>>> more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
>>> to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
>>> And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may
>> be
>>> - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned
>> parties -
>>> representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
>>> Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
>>> descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased
>> so
>>> far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
>>> life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
>>> interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>>>>>
>>>>> --- In , A J Hibbard
>> <ajhibbard@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
>>> individuals
>>>>>> being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional
>>>>>> addresses --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
>>>>>> Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A J
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
>>>>>>> .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --- In , colyngbourne
>>> <no_reply@>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
>>> to write
>>>>>>> and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
>>> location for
>>>>>>> Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider
>> this
>>> - the
>>>>>>> licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
>>> person to
>>>>>>> write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
>>> encouraged
>>>>>>> to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
>>> location;
>>>>>>> it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
>>> place for
>>>>>>> Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
>>> tomb of
>>>>>>> some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- In , Hilary Jones
>>> <hjnatdat@>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
>>> only
>>>>>>> institution with any discretion in this is the University under
>>> the terms
>>>>>>> of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
>>> the first
>>>>>>> instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will
>> send
>>> us round
>>>>>>> in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
>>> have now
>>>>>>> given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is
>> not
>>>>>>> unhelpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>>>>>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Â
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
>>> authority
>>>>>>> to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
>>> made out
>>>>>>> for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
>>> the choice
>>>>>>> (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
>>> "belong" to
>>>>>>> anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
>>> "property" -
>>>>>>> they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
>>> University do
>>>>>>> not "own" them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --- In , "EileenB"
>>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily
>> Mail..that
>>> the
>>>>>>> Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of
>> Richard's
>>> remains
>>>>>>> from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
>>> through
>>>>>>> treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard
>> had
>>>>>>> planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
>>> York
>>>>>>> Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
>>> Speculation of
>>>>>>> course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eileen
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --- In , "Pamela"
>>>>>>> <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
>>> until
>>>>>>> now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
>>> people of
>>>>>>> Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now,
>> I've
>>> gone
>>>>>>> completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel
>> badly
>>> for the
>>>>>>> city and the people. According to my friend who was just there
>> for
>>> the
>>>>>>> conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
>>> could go to
>>>>>>> York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
>>> would've
>>>>>>> wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one
>> can
>>> deny his
>>>>>>> strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
>>> suggested
>>>>>>> here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
>>> been
>>>>>>> buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical
>> fact,
>>> for me
>>>>>>> the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
>>> that
>>>>>>> monument to
>>>>>>>>> excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
>>> untenable. Not
>>>>>>> that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
>>> corner.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --- In , "EileenB"
>>>>>>> <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
>>> I said
>>>>>>> in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
>>> Leicester
>>>>>>> idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
>>> with those
>>>>>>> ill-considered words....Eileen
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In ,
>>> pansydobersby
>>>>>>> <no_reply@> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
>>> a grand
>>>>>>> memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:46:36
I would urgently email the Under-Secretary for Justice right now, marked URGENT - stating your concerns about what appears to be "deals" done between the City Council and the Uni to keep a king's remains, without any reference to national bodies, descendants and national guidelines.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:48:44
Forgot to include the link to the press release - this should be included in any email to the Under-Secretary (though I would also write to the Minster for Justice too - Chris Grayling - any MP's email can be easily found on the parliament website - http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/media-centre/richard-iii/re-interrment/reinterment-of-king-richard-iii-statement-from-the-university-of-leicester/
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 18:54:03
As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > I'd add).Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >Â
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > I'd add).Â
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Â
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >Â
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 19:17:42
I think we have to be very careful here as to how we go about it. The University of Leicester hold the licence. A spokesperson for them (I forget their title or importance) has already mooted the suggestion that Richard's remains could go on display and it is not unheard of following the discovery of archaeological remains for them to be kept by a University indefinitely. This could, therefore, allow the University to hold onto Richard's remains under the guise that the decision where to inter him is on hold. There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the City of Leicester.
Elaine
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Elaine
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>
> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>
> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>
> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> >
> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > addresses --
> >
> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > unhelpful.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
> > > not "own" them.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
> > > monument to
> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 19:31:08
From: ellrosa1452
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> City of Leicester.
In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> City of Leicester.
In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 19:39:55
I find, to my chagrin, that the copy at that link is not correct. There's a better copy at Project Gutenberg:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26027/26027-h/26027-h.html#Pg201
That's what I get for posting the first one that comes up! *blush*
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how very much there yet to learn. My short time on this site has opened windows on a world I had been interested in, but I know NOW how very little I actually knew, and how much more I need to read, re-read and study.
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Sheffe" <shethra77@...<mailto:shethra77@...>> wrote:
>
>Cool! Here's a link to a copy:
>
>http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
>
>Sheffe
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
>>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>
>>
>>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
>>To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>>> large!!!!!
>>
>>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>>
>>We are the little folk, we,
>>Too little to love or to hate:
>>Leave us alone and you'll see
>>How we can bring down the state.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26027/26027-h/26027-h.html#Pg201
That's what I get for posting the first one that comes up! *blush*
Sheffe
>________________________________
> From: Pamela Bain <pbain@...>
>To: "<>" <>
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>Oh thank you for the wonderful link. Lovely to read the entire poem......I think far better to be a small fish, than write, "we are the movers and shakers of this world, forever it seems.....Only to mature and grow older and wiser and find out that all youth think that. It is only as you mature, that you realize the more you thought you knew, correlates to how very much there yet to learn. My short time on this site has opened windows on a world I had been interested in, but I know NOW how very little I actually knew, and how much more I need to read, re-read and study.
>
>On Mar 14, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Sheffe" <shethra77@...<mailto:shethra77@...>> wrote:
>
>Cool! Here's a link to a copy:
>
>http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/176156
>
>Sheffe
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound%40madasafish.com>>
>>To: <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 3:36 PM
>>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>
>>
>>From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
>>To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
>>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:27 PM
>>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>>
>>> We are all little fish. However, I firmly believe it is the little fish,
>>> in aggregate, who truly make things happen. So shall we small fish gird
>>> large!!!!!
>>
>>There's a very, very creepy poem by Kipling which begins
>>
>>We are the little folk, we,
>>Too little to love or to hate:
>>Leave us alone and you'll see
>>How we can bring down the state.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 19:47:08
My understanding is that the tomb was commissioned in 2010. Just when the talks involving the Society regarding re-interment began, I don't know, but part of the issue here is that all parties, at some point, agreed that Richard would have a "tomb" not a slab, and now the cathedral has reneged on that agreement. Clearly, they never thought he would actually be found and when he was, they started back-peddling. So now there are several issues. If Leicester were to agree to a tomb, we know there are still people, many on this forum, who (1) think he should go to York, and (2) are upset at the way this was handled, behind closed doors and without proper input. So to complicate things further, we're fighting battles on at least three fronts now.
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
>
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Â
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 21:03:07
Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones in a museum is bloody outrageous. i think it's bad enough when they do it with anonymous people they've dug up but to do it to a a person whose identity is very well known is disgraceful.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:43
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
From: ellrosa1452
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> City of Leicester.
In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:43
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
From: ellrosa1452
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: dishonorable
> There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> City of Leicester.
In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 21:05:24
I was in favour of Leicester quite definitely at first but frankly now I don't care which church gets him as long as they honour him with a tomb appropriate for a King of England. The King of England should not have anything "humble"
________________________________
From: Pamela <ownwrite101@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:47
Subject: Re: dishonorable
My understanding is that the tomb was commissioned in 2010. Just when the talks involving the Society regarding re-interment began, I don't know, but part of the issue here is that all parties, at some point, agreed that Richard would have a "tomb" not a slab, and now the cathedral has reneged on that agreement. Clearly, they never thought he would actually be found and when he was, they started back-peddling. So now there are several issues. If Leicester were to agree to a tomb, we know there are still people, many on this forum, who (1) think he should go to York, and (2) are upset at the way this was handled, behind closed doors and without proper input. So to complicate things further, we're fighting battles on at least three fronts now.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burialà to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Ã
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________
From: Pamela <ownwrite101@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:47
Subject: Re: dishonorable
My understanding is that the tomb was commissioned in 2010. Just when the talks involving the Society regarding re-interment began, I don't know, but part of the issue here is that all parties, at some point, agreed that Richard would have a "tomb" not a slab, and now the cathedral has reneged on that agreement. Clearly, they never thought he would actually be found and when he was, they started back-peddling. So now there are several issues. If Leicester were to agree to a tomb, we know there are still people, many on this forum, who (1) think he should go to York, and (2) are upset at the way this was handled, behind closed doors and without proper input. So to complicate things further, we're fighting battles on at least three fronts now.
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
>
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burialà to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Ã
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Ã
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >Â
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 21:27:51
From: liz williams
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones
> in a museum is bloody outrageous.
I know, but that's our thinking - it probably wouldn't be his. He lived in
an age when people carried the supposed bones of sainbts around with them.
To:
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones
> in a museum is bloody outrageous.
I know, but that's our thinking - it probably wouldn't be his. He lived in
an age when people carried the supposed bones of sainbts around with them.
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 21:54:46
But Richard wasn't a saint and I'm sure he knew he wasn't a saint. It would be atrocious if that would happen! Maire.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones
> > in a museum is bloody outrageous.
>
> I know, but that's our thinking - it probably wouldn't be his. He lived in
> an age when people carried the supposed bones of sainbts around with them.
>
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: liz williams
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 9:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones
> > in a museum is bloody outrageous.
>
> I know, but that's our thinking - it probably wouldn't be his. He lived in
> an age when people carried the supposed bones of sainbts around with them.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-15 21:59:24
Rather a lab than the display.
And I agree that we have had a lot of debate but not getting anywhere. Christine got an email which to me seems vague. We have so many society members here that we can actually send our thoughts to the people higher up. I will be devastated if he ends up under the slab. But not as as much as if they decide to display his poor bones. He had been cruelly displayed once but we absolutely have to fight tooth and nail against this travesty. If indeed the Uni plans to do some thing like this. This whole situation is very upsetting.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:03 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones in a museum is bloody outrageous. i think it's bad enough when they do it with anonymous people they've dug up but to do it to a a person whose identity is very well known is disgraceful.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:43
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> From: ellrosa1452
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> > There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> > decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> > City of Leicester.
>
> In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
> being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
> flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
>
>
>
>
And I agree that we have had a lot of debate but not getting anywhere. Christine got an email which to me seems vague. We have so many society members here that we can actually send our thoughts to the people higher up. I will be devastated if he ends up under the slab. But not as as much as if they decide to display his poor bones. He had been cruelly displayed once but we absolutely have to fight tooth and nail against this travesty. If indeed the Uni plans to do some thing like this. This whole situation is very upsetting.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 15, 2013, at 5:03 PM, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones in a museum is bloody outrageous. i think it's bad enough when they do it with anonymous people they've dug up but to do it to a a person whose identity is very well known is disgraceful.
>
> ________________________________
> From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 19:43
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> From: ellrosa1452
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 7:17 PM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> > There is also the other, equally, distasteful scenario where they could
> > decide to display them in the museum which we know is being planned by the
> > City of Leicester.
>
> In some ways that's an option which I might find less distressing than him
> being buried under a minimal slab. He himself would probably find it very
> flattering - since in his day, that was what they did with saints.
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 09:27:15
After a night's sleep that's my feeling too!
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I would urgently email the Under-Secretary for Justice right now, marked URGENT - stating your concerns about what appears to be "deals" done between the City Council and the Uni to keep a king's remains, without any reference to national bodies, descendants and national guidelines.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:46
Subject: Re: dishonorable
I would urgently email the Under-Secretary for Justice right now, marked URGENT - stating your concerns about what appears to be "deals" done between the City Council and the Uni to keep a king's remains, without any reference to national bodies, descendants and national guidelines.
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
> From: "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...>
> To: <>
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 5:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> Not sure. On the one hand, wrangling about it on the forum doesn't
> neccessarily take us very far. On the other, this is a
> once-in-all-of-human-history issue which has to be resolved within, say, six
> months, before the construction of Richard';s tomb gets under way, and if it
> isn't done right within those six months it will be too late forever,
> whereas the usual historical debate about who did what to whom can pefectly
> well wait for a year or two.
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 09:28:30
Yet again the King who favoured justice is dealt with so poorly by it. It's indeed disgraceful.
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: dishonorable
As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burialà to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > I'd add).Ã
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >Â
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
Subject: Re: dishonorable
As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
>
> A J
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...
> > wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> >
> >
> > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > >
> > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > >
> > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > churchyard.
> > >
> > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > >
> > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > >
> > > I am reeling at this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > Leicester burialà to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > I'd add).Ã
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > >
> > > > Ã
> > > >
> > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > >
> > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > >
> > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > >
> > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > individuals
> > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > addresses --
> > > > >
> > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > >
> > > > > A J
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > **
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > to write
> > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > location for
> > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > - the
> > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > person to
> > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > encouraged
> > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > location;
> > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > place for
> > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > tomb of
> > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > only
> > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > the terms
> > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > the first
> > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > us round
> > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > have now
> > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ã’â¬a
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > authority
> > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > made out
> > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > the choice
> > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > "belong" to
> > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > "property" -
> > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > University do
> > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > the
> > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > remains
> > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > through
> > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > York
> > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > Speculation of
> > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > until
> > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > people of
> > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > gone
> > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > for the
> > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > the
> > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > doesn't
> > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > could go to
> > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > would've
> > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > deny his
> > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > suggested
> > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > been
> > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > for me
> > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > that
> > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > untenable. Not
> > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > corner.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > I said
> > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > Leicester
> > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > with those
> > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > pansydobersby
> > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > a grand
> > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >Â
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 12:31:41
I find the comments about not having a tomb because Richard III was a controversial figure and it would be inappropriate given the "stories" of his wrong doings quite incredible - two of the grandest tombs in Westminster Abbey are for Richard II who we can categorically state murdered his uncle [Duke of Gloucester] and Edward I who ran a systematic slaughter campaign against both the Welsh and Scottish people.
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yet again the King who favoured justice is dealt with so poorly by it. It's indeed disgraceful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >ÂÂ
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>
> Yet again the King who favoured justice is dealt with so poorly by it. It's indeed disgraceful.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> Â
>
> As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > **
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > >
> > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > >
> > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > churchyard.
> > > >
> > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > >
> > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > >
> > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > I'd add).Â
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > >
> > > > > Â
> > > > >
> > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > >
> > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > individuals
> > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A J
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > **
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > to write
> > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > location for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > - the
> > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > person to
> > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > encouraged
> > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > location;
> > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > place for
> > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > tomb of
> > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > only
> > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > the terms
> > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > the first
> > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > us round
> > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > have now
> > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > authority
> > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > made out
> > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > the choice
> > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > "property" -
> > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > University do
> > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > the
> > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > remains
> > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > through
> > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > York
> > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > until
> > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > people of
> > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > gone
> > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > for the
> > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > the
> > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > doesn't
> > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > could go to
> > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > would've
> > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > deny his
> > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > suggested
> > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > been
> > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > for me
> > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > that
> > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > I said
> > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > Leicester
> > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > with those
> > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > a grand
> > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >ÂÂ
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-16 14:34:38
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> A family who were ancestors of the Mowbray and Howard families - like the Bigods. The brother of Edward II, indeed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
Carol responds:
Thanks, Stephen. So "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray" means "the coats of arms of Brotherton *and of* Richard, Duke of York impaling those of Brotherton and Mowbray"? But how are the Brotherton arms connected with Edward's younger son and why would they appear twice? Or am I just hopelessly heraldically challenged? (Don't answer that last question!)
Carol
>
> A family who were ancestors of the Mowbray and Howard families - like the Bigods. The brother of Edward II, indeed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
Carol responds:
Thanks, Stephen. So "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray" means "the coats of arms of Brotherton *and of* Richard, Duke of York impaling those of Brotherton and Mowbray"? But how are the Brotherton arms connected with Edward's younger son and why would they appear twice? Or am I just hopelessly heraldically challenged? (Don't answer that last question!)
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 15:16:46
A GREAT Deal has been said on this Forum about the City of York, It's 'Loyalty' to & 'Remembrance' of
'Good King Richard'. Perhaps the time has come to ENSURE that the 'City of York'
[As opposed to the Minster] is brought into the picture.
Having said that, maybe the current 'Duke of York' might also be polled & if Possible HIS SUPPORT gained.
After All if the Mayor of Leicester is involved then others need to also become at least canvassed.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>I think we have to ask like Christine, where is the Society in this?
>
>But: Leicester CC could give permission for a dig: they could not in Law say where the bones should be interred. Methinks the Society may need legal help on this. It's a case which should be easily won as the Council and the Uni have clearly exceeded their authority.
>
>It is very cross-making though and all the more so because legal wrangling starts to bring the whole thing into disrepute
>
>
>________________________________
>From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:39
>Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>
>Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>
>They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>
>They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
>
>They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>
>ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
>
>I am reeling at this.
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>>
>> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
>> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
>> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>>
>> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>>
>> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>>
>> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
>> >
>> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
>> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
>> > addresses --
>> >
>> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
>> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>> >
>> > A J
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
>> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
>> >
>> > > **
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
>> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
>> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
>> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
>> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
>> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
>> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
>> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
>> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
>> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
>> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
>> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
>> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
>> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
>> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
>> > > unhelpful.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > > > > To:
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
>> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã
>> > > > >
>> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
>> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
>> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
>> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
>> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
>> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
>> > > not "own" them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
>> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
>> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
>> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
>> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
>> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
>> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
>> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
>> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
>> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
>> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
>> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
>> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
>> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
>> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
>> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
>> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
>> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
>> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
>> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
>> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
>> > > monument to
>> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
>> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
>> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
>> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
>> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
>> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
>> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
>> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
'Good King Richard'. Perhaps the time has come to ENSURE that the 'City of York'
[As opposed to the Minster] is brought into the picture.
Having said that, maybe the current 'Duke of York' might also be polled & if Possible HIS SUPPORT gained.
After All if the Mayor of Leicester is involved then others need to also become at least canvassed.
Kind Regards,
Arthur.
>________________________________
> From: Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...>
>To: "" <>
>Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
>Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>I think we have to ask like Christine, where is the Society in this?
>
>But: Leicester CC could give permission for a dig: they could not in Law say where the bones should be interred. Methinks the Society may need legal help on this. It's a case which should be easily won as the Council and the Uni have clearly exceeded their authority.
>
>It is very cross-making though and all the more so because legal wrangling starts to bring the whole thing into disrepute
>
>
>________________________________
>From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:39
>Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
>
>
>The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
>
>Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
>
>They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains. The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
>
>They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest churchyard.
>
>They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
>
>ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a proviso of the dig going ahead?
>
>I am reeling at this.
>
>--- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@...> wrote:
>>
>> I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him I'd add).Â
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
>> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>>
>> Â
>>
>> York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@...
>> Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
>> jeremy.wright.mp@...
>>
>> I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers. And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
>>
>> It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties - representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants". Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
>>
>> --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
>> >
>> > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of individuals
>> > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
>> > addresses --
>> >
>> > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
>> > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
>> >
>> > A J
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
>> > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
>> >
>> > > **
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
>> > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing to write
>> > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting location for
>> > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this - the
>> > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the person to
>> > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be encouraged
>> > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different location;
>> > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate place for
>> > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a tomb of
>> > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the only
>> > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under the terms
>> > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in the first
>> > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send us round
>> > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities have now
>> > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
>> > > unhelpful.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ________________________________
>> > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> > > > > To:
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
>> > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ã
>> > > > >
>> > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no authority
>> > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is made out
>> > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have the choice
>> > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not "belong" to
>> > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as "property" -
>> > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the University do
>> > > not "own" them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
>> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that the
>> > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's remains
>> > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming through
>> > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
>> > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at York
>> > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains. Speculation of
>> > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Eileen
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
>> > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester until
>> > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the people of
>> > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've gone
>> > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly for the
>> > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for the
>> > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that doesn't
>> > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he could go to
>> > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he would've
>> > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can deny his
>> > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been suggested
>> > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have been
>> > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact, for me
>> > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as that
>> > > monument to
>> > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is untenable. Not
>> > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some corner.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
>> > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as I said
>> > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the Leicester
>> > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree with those
>> > > ill-considered words....Eileen
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > --- In , pansydobersby
>> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves a grand
>> > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-16 15:16:52
Because Anne Mowbray was descended from Thomas Brotherton and because Richard of Shrewsbury was originally Duke of Norfolk in jure uxoris.
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> A family who were ancestors of the Mowbray and Howard families - like the Bigods. The brother of Edward II, indeed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
Carol responds:
Thanks, Stephen. So "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray" means "the coats of arms of Brotherton *and of* Richard, Duke of York impaling those of Brotherton and Mowbray"? But how are the Brotherton arms connected with Edward's younger son and why would they appear twice? Or am I just hopelessly heraldically challenged? (Don't answer that last question!)
Carol
----- Original Message -----
From: justcarol67
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> A family who were ancestors of the Mowbray and Howard families - like the Bigods. The brother of Edward II, indeed:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Norfolk
Carol responds:
Thanks, Stephen. So "the coats of arms of Brotherton, Richard Duke of York impaling Brotherton and Mowbray" means "the coats of arms of Brotherton *and of* Richard, Duke of York impaling those of Brotherton and Mowbray"? But how are the Brotherton arms connected with Edward's younger son and why would they appear twice? Or am I just hopelessly heraldically challenged? (Don't answer that last question!)
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 15:21:20
buttonbaz1 wrote:
"I find the comments about not having a tomb because Richard III was a
controversial figure and it would be inappropriate given the "stories" of
his wrong doings quite incredible - two of the grandest tombs in Westminster
Abbey are for Richard II who we can categorically state murdered his uncle
[Duke of Gloucester] and Edward I who ran a systematic slaughter campaign
against both the Welsh and Scottish people.:
Doug here:
I have no idea what the texts for the schools in the UK contain about
Richard III, but I *do* know what Shakespeare wrote in his play and it's my
impression the latter is what the phrase refers to. It isn't as if
"historians", who should have known better, don't seem to have displayed any
energy or interest in actually discovering whether the contents of
Shakespeare's play was based on facts or fiction!
That's what leads me to believe that any hesitancy(?) on the part of
Leicester Cathedral about how to properly recognize Richard III is based as
much as anything else on what the members of the staff there *think* they
know about Richard. *We* know that almost all that's been written about
Richard III has been, to say the least, twisted to conform to a successor's
need to justify *his* actions; the general public, not so much. I include
those at Leicester Cathedral in that last group. "Controversy" is, after
all, in the eye of the beholder...
The best antidote I can think of as a way of correcting five centuries of
propaganda would be to require the staff at the Cathedral to read "The
Maligned King", but I doubt that would be feasible. We do need to continue
applying pressure - politely, of course - while remembering that those we're
trying to influence are likely fully occupied *already* with assigned tasks
associated with their positions and, as with most people, not likely to look
on any increase in that workload with great favor.
Remember: "Non carborandum...."
Doug
"I find the comments about not having a tomb because Richard III was a
controversial figure and it would be inappropriate given the "stories" of
his wrong doings quite incredible - two of the grandest tombs in Westminster
Abbey are for Richard II who we can categorically state murdered his uncle
[Duke of Gloucester] and Edward I who ran a systematic slaughter campaign
against both the Welsh and Scottish people.:
Doug here:
I have no idea what the texts for the schools in the UK contain about
Richard III, but I *do* know what Shakespeare wrote in his play and it's my
impression the latter is what the phrase refers to. It isn't as if
"historians", who should have known better, don't seem to have displayed any
energy or interest in actually discovering whether the contents of
Shakespeare's play was based on facts or fiction!
That's what leads me to believe that any hesitancy(?) on the part of
Leicester Cathedral about how to properly recognize Richard III is based as
much as anything else on what the members of the staff there *think* they
know about Richard. *We* know that almost all that's been written about
Richard III has been, to say the least, twisted to conform to a successor's
need to justify *his* actions; the general public, not so much. I include
those at Leicester Cathedral in that last group. "Controversy" is, after
all, in the eye of the beholder...
The best antidote I can think of as a way of correcting five centuries of
propaganda would be to require the staff at the Cathedral to read "The
Maligned King", but I doubt that would be feasible. We do need to continue
applying pressure - politely, of course - while remembering that those we're
trying to influence are likely fully occupied *already* with assigned tasks
associated with their positions and, as with most people, not likely to look
on any increase in that workload with great favor.
Remember: "Non carborandum...."
Doug
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 15:33:52
Leicester Cathedral, by issuing the design brief, has now demonstrated to everyone involved that they are incapable of dealing with something of this magnitude. Time to take the matchbook away from the toddlers and let the grownups light the fire.
--- In , "buttonbaz1@..." <buttonbaz1@...> wrote:
>
> I find the comments about not having a tomb because Richard III was a controversial figure and it would be inappropriate given the "stories" of his wrong doings quite incredible - two of the grandest tombs in Westminster Abbey are for Richard II who we can categorically state murdered his uncle [Duke of Gloucester] and Edward I who ran a systematic slaughter campaign against both the Welsh and Scottish people.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yet again the King who favoured justice is dealt with so poorly by it. It's indeed disgraceful.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > > >
> > > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > > >
> > > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > > churchyard.
> > > > >
> > > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > > >
> > > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > > I'd add).Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > > individuals
> > > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A J
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > > to write
> > > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > > location for
> > > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > > - the
> > > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > > person to
> > > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > > encouraged
> > > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > > location;
> > > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > > place for
> > > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > > tomb of
> > > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > > the terms
> > > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > > the first
> > > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > > us round
> > > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > > have now
> > > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > > authority
> > > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > > made out
> > > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > > the choice
> > > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > > "property" -
> > > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > > University do
> > > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > > remains
> > > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > > through
> > > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > > York
> > > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > > until
> > > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > > people of
> > > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > > gone
> > > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > > for the
> > > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > > could go to
> > > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > > would've
> > > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > > deny his
> > > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > > for me
> > > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > > I said
> > > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > > Leicester
> > > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > > with those
> > > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > > a grand
> > > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >ÂÂ
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--- In , "buttonbaz1@..." <buttonbaz1@...> wrote:
>
> I find the comments about not having a tomb because Richard III was a controversial figure and it would be inappropriate given the "stories" of his wrong doings quite incredible - two of the grandest tombs in Westminster Abbey are for Richard II who we can categorically state murdered his uncle [Duke of Gloucester] and Edward I who ran a systematic slaughter campaign against both the Welsh and Scottish people.
>
> --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> >
> > Yet again the King who favoured justice is dealt with so poorly by it. It's indeed disgraceful.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > To:
> > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 18:54
> > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> >
> > Â
> >
> > As evidenced in a letter to a concerned Ricardian who asked about the "process" of decision-making on Leicester, a reply from the Society indicates that the Society were in talks and agreeing with the Cathedral as the reinterment site back in 2010. (This fact alone is shocking to me.) And before the dig, there is a reference somewhere publicly available as to the fact that PL had to convince the City Council to let them dig, as the University didn't think the Council would let them go ahead. It seems as if the Council would only agree to the dig "on the basis" that Richard's remains be kept in the town. What treatment of human remains! A king's remains! A nation's king !
> >
> > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@> wrote:
> > >
> > > AJ I do think we've reached the point where we need some guidance from the Society of which we are members. Were they party to some of the Leicester 'arrangements' to which Col refers? Are we going to end up fighting an agreement to which the Society was party? I know forums don't usually turn into action groups but these circumstances are very unusual. Neil, are you out there and can you offer any info or help from the Society's perspective? H
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 17:50
> > > Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
> > >
> > > Yes, debate on this forum is good, but now needs to move beyond.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > **
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for sharing this with us. I fully agree and I think we should
> > > > all keep up the pressure. It's heartening that debate is now happening on
> > > > the forum, which to me had seemed rather quiet. There has been a lot of
> > > > high-handedness shown by the 'partners' in this project.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The way it is going, it should be taken entirely out of Leicester's
> > > > hands full-stop by the MoJ. I hope so and speedily so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary for Justice is attempting to
> > > > broker a meeting between Leicester University and representatives of the
> > > > case for York, and the fact that the Advisory Body for the English Heritage
> > > > Best Practice doc on re-interments has recommended that "no decision be
> > > > made on the location" as yet, the University of Leicester have just
> > > > released a statement saying they will not alter their plans.
> > > > >
> > > > > They expand on this to say that before the dig, "Leicester Cathedral was
> > > > agreed on by all those searching for Richard" - this confirms that a deal
> > > > was done behind closed doors with absolutely no intention to observe any
> > > > national guidelines in respect of the burial of identified human remains.
> > > > The guidelines clearly state that decisions have to be made in the public
> > > > interest and be publicly accountable, and that the opinions of surviving
> > > > descendants have to be taken into account. The decision here seems to be in
> > > > the interest of Leicester, not of the nation or the public, not in
> > > > Richard's interests and without any wider consultation.
> > > > >
> > > > > They also state - "Reinterment on the nearest consecrated ground is in
> > > > keeping with good archaeological practice." Yes, in the case of
> > > > unidentified remains; no, in the case of named individuals. Imagine any
> > > > missing persons case from the last 50 years, and the authorities insisting
> > > > that the discovered remains of a person are re-interred in the nearest
> > > > churchyard.
> > > > >
> > > > > They also state - "Leicester City Council gave permission for the
> > > > excavation of the Greyfriars site on this basis."
> > > > >
> > > > > ie. the City Council allowed the dig on the basis that Leicester keep
> > > > the remains. They have surely exceeded their authority in making this a
> > > > proviso of the dig going ahead?
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reeling at this.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones <hjnatdat@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this is a daft question but, if we want the decision for a
> > > > Leicester burial to be re-assessed (and I do) are we advising that the Uni
> > > > propose a panel of representatives, such as those you cite below? Will they
> > > > convene it, monitor it and make the final decision again, or do we want
> > > > some more neutral arbitrator to oversee it and make recommendations to the
> > > > Uni - who are the only ones with the legal power to make a change? I know
> > > > this may seem niggly, but if we're not sure what we're asking for we can't
> > > > complain if the outcome is not as we wished. Imagine, for example, if the
> > > > hearing was chaired by the Mayor of Leicester (nothing personal against him
> > > > I'd add).Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > To:
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, 15 March 2013, 15:47
> > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Â
> > > > > >
> > > > > > York Minster Chapter - Adnrew Oates who is - chapterclerk@
> > > > > > Then the Under-Secretary for Justice -
> > > > > > jeremy.wright.mp@
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I haven't emailed Leicester Cathedral as the prime reason for my
> > > > emailing is to have the "decision for Leicester" re-assessed - which looks
> > > > as if it is going to happen. I feel Leicester has always been and is, even
> > > > more so now, the wrong place to re-inter Richard, so my letters have been
> > > > to people who might bring some influence to bear on the decision-makers.
> > > > And Leicester Cathedral have no official say in the decision.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is down to the University (whatever the terms of the licence may be
> > > > - and there is continued concern over its wording), and concerned parties -
> > > > representatives of those wishing elsewhere, including the "Descendants".
> > > > Following government guidelines, the wishes of surviving family line
> > > > descendants are given serious weight; the "likely wishes of the deceased so
> > > > far as they can be inferred" might be represented by experts in Richard's
> > > > life and times. I hope that the Society might speak for Richard being
> > > > interred in a place that is meaningful to his life, not to his death.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those who have a Facebook account there are a number of
> > > > individuals
> > > > > > > being suggested & someone has promised to round up additional e-mail
> > > > > > > addresses --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The suggestions include authorities at York, at the University of
> > > > > > > Leicester, at Leicester "cathedral" & the under secretary MOJ.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A J
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 6:52 AM, EileenB
> > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@>wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Good post Colynbourne...Letter to the Registrar at Leicester Uni!
> > > > > > > > .....Good idea!...more suggestions folks? Eileen
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In , colyngbourne
> > > > <no_reply@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree that the University has the "licence" so anyone wishing
> > > > to write
> > > > > > > > and encourage them to consider a more spacious and fitting
> > > > location for
> > > > > > > > Richard's remains - eg. York! - can write to them to consider this
> > > > - the
> > > > > > > > licence does allow for re-interment elsewhere. I gather that the
> > > > person to
> > > > > > > > write to is the Registrar there. I think the Society ought to be
> > > > encouraged
> > > > > > > > to re-think as well - so many people are calling for a different
> > > > location;
> > > > > > > > it would help to know they were thinking of the most appropriate
> > > > place for
> > > > > > > > Richard's remains to lie (and one where he might possibly have a
> > > > tomb of
> > > > > > > > some status befitting a king and the last of the Plantagenets.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In , Hilary Jones
> > > > <hjnatdat@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > That's absolutely true. It was made clear on Tuesday that the
> > > > only
> > > > > > > > institution with any discretion in this is the University under
> > > > the terms
> > > > > > > > of the licence. Should not the pressure therefore be directed in
> > > > the first
> > > > > > > > instance to its Vice Chancellor? All other people/bodies will send
> > > > us round
> > > > > > > > in the same circle. By chance of course the cathedral authorities
> > > > have now
> > > > > > > > given us more ammunition to ask for re-consideration, which is not
> > > > > > > > unhelpful.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > To:
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 14 March 2013, 23:00
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: dishonorable
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ÃÆ'‚
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > He may be issuing statements in the Mercury, but he has no
> > > > authority
> > > > > > > > to keep the remains. The licence (so far as it is valid - it is
> > > > made out
> > > > > > > > for "unknown persons"?) is held by the University, and they have
> > > > the choice
> > > > > > > > (currently) to inter there or elsewhere. The remains do not
> > > > "belong" to
> > > > > > > > anyone, as long-deceased human remains cannot be classed as
> > > > "property" -
> > > > > > > > they are currently "in the custody" of the University but the
> > > > University do
> > > > > > > > not "own" them.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Pamela..I read online today ..the Daily Mail..that
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > Mayor of Leicester is attempting to block the removal of Richard's
> > > > remains
> > > > > > > > from Leicester...I dont know if this is true...Its like swimming
> > > > through
> > > > > > > > treacle trying to get to the bottom of this.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Before this situation happened I had wondered if Richard had
> > > > > > > > planned, but never got the chance, to build a suitable chapel at
> > > > York
> > > > > > > > Minster for his, Anne's and Edward of Middleham's remains.
> > > > Speculation of
> > > > > > > > course... But he did have strong ties with York/Yorkshire.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "Pamela"
> > > > > > > > <ownwrite101@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm with you, Eileen. I was perfectly fine with Leicester
> > > > until
> > > > > > > > now because I naively thought the cathedral authorities, like the
> > > > people of
> > > > > > > > Leicester, would welcome Richard and his beautiful tomb. Now, I've
> > > > gone
> > > > > > > > completely off Leicester Cathedral as well, though I do feel badly
> > > > for the
> > > > > > > > city and the people. According to my friend who was just there for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > conference, Leicester has gone "Richard III crazy." Too bad that
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > > include the Cathedral folk. Now I hope York will step up. If he
> > > > could go to
> > > > > > > > York Minster, it would pretty much end discussion as to what he
> > > > would've
> > > > > > > > wanted. I know we have no hard evidence about that, but no one can
> > > > deny his
> > > > > > > > strong ties to and deep affection for York. Perhaps, as has been
> > > > suggested
> > > > > > > > here, had he enjoyed a long life and reign, he would indeed have
> > > > been
> > > > > > > > buried in Westminster Abbey. But given subsequent historical fact,
> > > > for me
> > > > > > > > the thought of him being laid to rest there, in the same place as
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > monument to
> > > > > > > > > > excess, the Henry VII Chapel, and that odious urn is
> > > > untenable. Not
> > > > > > > > that there's room for him there, anyway. He'd be stuck in some
> > > > corner.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --- In , "EileenB"
> > > > > > > > <cherryripe.eileenb@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the sticking point with me too Im afraid.....as
> > > > I said
> > > > > > > > in my previous post I have totally, but totally gone off the
> > > > Leicester
> > > > > > > > idea..Its a great shame for the Leicester people who dont agree
> > > > with those
> > > > > > > > ill-considered words....Eileen
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In ,
> > > > pansydobersby
> > > > > > > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > '... furthermore, we're not sure he actually deserves
> > > > a grand
> > > > > > > > memorial, as he wasn't such a good guy.'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >ÂÂ
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 18:52:43
liz williams wrote:
>
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones in a museum is bloody outrageous. i think it's bad enough when they do it with anonymous people they've dug up but to do it to a a person whose identity is very well known is disgraceful.
Carol responds:
Since Richard's actual bones will be reburied, I think the plan is to display a replica skeleton. But for entirely personal reasons, I hope that they'll decide against it. First, they seem to be treating him as an exciting archaeological discovery rather than a former king of England, and second, I'm afraid displaying the bones will place undue emphasis on his terrible death, the humiliation wounds, and, above all, the scoliosis, which too many people already regard as confirmation of the "hunchback" myth. He deserves respect and dignity, which will not happen if a replica of his skeleton is displayed like that of a mastodon for the curious to gawk at (and the malicious to ridicule).
I'm glad that he's been found and will finally have a fitting memorial service, and even a slab in Leicester Cathedral is better than a shallow, too-short grave beneath a parking lot, but I'll be glad when it's all over and he can rest in peace.
Carol
>
> Ugh I'd much rather have a slab. I think the idea of displaying his bones in a museum is bloody outrageous. i think it's bad enough when they do it with anonymous people they've dug up but to do it to a a person whose identity is very well known is disgraceful.
Carol responds:
Since Richard's actual bones will be reburied, I think the plan is to display a replica skeleton. But for entirely personal reasons, I hope that they'll decide against it. First, they seem to be treating him as an exciting archaeological discovery rather than a former king of England, and second, I'm afraid displaying the bones will place undue emphasis on his terrible death, the humiliation wounds, and, above all, the scoliosis, which too many people already regard as confirmation of the "hunchback" myth. He deserves respect and dignity, which will not happen if a replica of his skeleton is displayed like that of a mastodon for the curious to gawk at (and the malicious to ridicule).
I'm glad that he's been found and will finally have a fitting memorial service, and even a slab in Leicester Cathedral is better than a shallow, too-short grave beneath a parking lot, but I'll be glad when it's all over and he can rest in peace.
Carol
Re: dishonorable
2013-03-16 19:07:25
Ishita Bandyo wrote:
>
> Rather a lab than the display.
> And I agree that we have had a lot of debate but not getting anywhere. Christine got an email which to me seems vague. We have so many society members here that we can actually send our thoughts to the people higher up. [snip]
Carol responds:
Hi, Ishita. The Society executives know and share our concerns, as Annette's response to me has made clear. It seems to me that e-mailing them now would just add to their burden and prevent them from working things out. At best, they'll be reduced to sending out form letters; they certainly won't have time to respond to individual e-mails. On the other hand, a calm and well-expressed e-mail message to Leicester Cathedral might do some good, especially if it politely recommended some reading to educate the writers of the architectural brief!)
Carol
>
> Rather a lab than the display.
> And I agree that we have had a lot of debate but not getting anywhere. Christine got an email which to me seems vague. We have so many society members here that we can actually send our thoughts to the people higher up. [snip]
Carol responds:
Hi, Ishita. The Society executives know and share our concerns, as Annette's response to me has made clear. It seems to me that e-mailing them now would just add to their burden and prevent them from working things out. At best, they'll be reduced to sending out form letters; they certainly won't have time to respond to individual e-mails. On the other hand, a calm and well-expressed e-mail message to Leicester Cathedral might do some good, especially if it politely recommended some reading to educate the writers of the architectural brief!)
Carol
Re: It "fabric" was dishonorable
2013-03-16 19:38:37
"Stephen Lark" wrote:
>
> Because Anne Mowbray was descended from Thomas Brotherton and because Richard of Shrewsbury was originally Duke of Norfolk in jure uxoris.
Carol responds:
Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I forgot that little Richard was Duke of Norfolk in right of his wife, which would make her Brotherton arms his--rightfully or otherwise given that Edward seems to have shortchanged some adult male relatives of little Anne.
Carol
>
> Because Anne Mowbray was descended from Thomas Brotherton and because Richard of Shrewsbury was originally Duke of Norfolk in jure uxoris.
Carol responds:
Thank you for clearing up my confusion. I forgot that little Richard was Duke of Norfolk in right of his wife, which would make her Brotherton arms his--rightfully or otherwise given that Edward seems to have shortchanged some adult male relatives of little Anne.
Carol
Re: Off topic, Kipling
2013-03-16 20:27:23
His poem about Calcutta, the imperial capital, is decidedly ambivalent - and it's so evocative of place that it's one of my favourite poems. I've never been to Calcutta, but have read so many descriptions of the steamy atmosphere and the climate, the sounds and sights, that I "feel" his poem completely: -
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tale_of_two_cities.html
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> > Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
>
> He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for.
> People think now
> that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was
> an early
> proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather
> jaundiced view of
> the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction
> "Government of
> India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
>
> I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been
> interesting. He
> wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are
> sympathetic to them but
> very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in
> measure" (and, in
> a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with
> a rusty sword he
> found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million
> miles from some of
> the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her
> as haunted by the
> ghosts of her victims.
>
> http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
> http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
>
> These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A
> Pict Song was set
> to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
>
> > I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in
> WWI, and he never
> > really knew where.
>
> No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the
> Battle of Loos,
> poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's
> brother, also died. I
> remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran
> was a close
> colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same
> company of which
> Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George
> spent 26 years
> in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second
> Boer War and at
> Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that
> time was a nasty
> blister on his foot when he was in training.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/tale_of_two_cities.html
> On Mar 14, 2013, at 10:32 PM, "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...<mailto:whitehound@...>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: "Pamela Bain" <pbain@...<mailto:pbain%40bmbi.com>>
> To: <<mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 8:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: dishonorable
>
> > Wow, Rudyard knew his stuff.
>
> He's much more subtle than he usually gets credit for.
> People think now
> that he was an unthinking son of Empire but actually he was
> an early
> proponent of racial and cultural equality and had a rather
> jaundiced view of
> the raj - one of his poems includes the stage direction
> "Government of
> India, with white satin wings and electro-plated harp".
>
> I'm sorry he never wrote about Richard - it would have been
> interesting. He
> wrote at least two poems about the Tudors which are
> sympathetic to them but
> very un-idealised: his Henry advises somebody to "steal in
> measure" (and, in
> a short story called The Wrong Thing, knights somebody with
> a rusty sword he
> found behind an arras) and his Elizabeth is not a million
> miles from some of
> the traditionalist views of Richard, since he portrays her
> as haunted by the
> ghosts of her victims.
>
> http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_shipwrights.htm
> http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_lookinglass.htm
>
> These two have been set to music by Peter Bellamy, and A
> Pict Song was set
> to music by the Native American filk-singer Leslie Fish.
>
> > I wonder if he wrote that after his son was killed in
> WWI, and he never
> > really knew where.
>
> No, it was written before that. His son Jack died at the
> Battle of Loos,
> poor boy, where Fergus Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's
> brother, also died. I
> remember this because my great grandfather George Shirran
> was a close
> colleague of Fergus' (company quartermnaster in the same
> company of which
> Fergus was Captain), but George came home. In fact, George
> spent 26 years
> in the Black Watch and fought at Kirbekan, in the Second
> Boer War and at
> Loos, and the most serious injury he sustained in all that
> time was a nasty
> blister on his foot when he was in training.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> [email protected]
>
>
Re: dishonorable
2013-05-25 01:06:54
That would make sense -- he would be the "fabricator", much as "Fabrik" is a German word for what we call a "factory".
Tamara
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric
> > is a piece of cloth.
>
> The fabric of a building is the material from which it is made, so it
> probably means somebody who makes sure the building is in good condition and
> overseas any alterations.
>
Tamara
--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: justcarol67
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:36 PM
> Subject: Re: dishonorable
>
> > OT question: What do they mean by "fabric"? To me (as an American), fabric
> > is a piece of cloth.
>
> The fabric of a building is the material from which it is made, so it
> probably means somebody who makes sure the building is in good condition and
> overseas any alterations.
>
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.