My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 14:16:47
I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
"Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for renovation.
"Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the situation."
I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
Carol
"Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for renovation.
"Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the situation."
I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
Carol
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 14:26:30
You know, in the past, I probably would have agreed with the general idea
of going slow, & waiting for reasonable people to come together to take
appropriate action.
However, in my own state, we have in the last 2 years, had an elected
individual take unilateral decisions, passing laws that were not part of
his campaign platform. We've been through months of large-scale protest &
an expensive recall election where evidence suggest vote fraud has kept
this individual in office. Only now, are some of the laws he enacted being
struck down in court, although I suspect the legal battles are probably not
over.
All of which, I'm afraid, has demonstrated that there *are* unreasonable
people in positions of authority, & we will have few recourses, if the
moment slips away from us.
A J
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester
> Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard
> performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he
> saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because
> it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and
> replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether
> rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I
> realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not
> want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden
> is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for
> renovation.
>
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation?
> Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I
> think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting
> that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would
> prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the
> situation."
>
> I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
of going slow, & waiting for reasonable people to come together to take
appropriate action.
However, in my own state, we have in the last 2 years, had an elected
individual take unilateral decisions, passing laws that were not part of
his campaign platform. We've been through months of large-scale protest &
an expensive recall election where evidence suggest vote fraud has kept
this individual in office. Only now, are some of the laws he enacted being
struck down in court, although I suspect the legal battles are probably not
over.
All of which, I'm afraid, has demonstrated that there *are* unreasonable
people in positions of authority, & we will have few recourses, if the
moment slips away from us.
A J
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 9:16 AM, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> **
>
>
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester
> Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard
> performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he
> saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because
> it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and
> replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether
> rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I
> realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not
> want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden
> is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for
> renovation.
>
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation?
> Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I
> think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting
> that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would
> prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the
> situation."
>
> I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
>
> Carol
>
>
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 16:28:43
Carol, Very good email! Your email reflects our thoughts exactly. I am really interested to hear what the society has to say.
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 16, 2013, at 10:16 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for renovation.
>
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the situation."
>
> I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
>
> Carol
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
www.ishitabandyo.com
www.facebook.com/ishitabandyofinearts
www.ishitabandyoarts.blogspot.com
On Mar 16, 2013, at 10:16 AM, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb. While I realize that the cathedral has concerns with available space and would not want its religious services disrupted, surely a side chapel with a garden is both feasible and in keeping with the cathedral's own plans for renovation.
>
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? I think that we should just stay calm and wait for a resolution, trusting that those in charge will make the right decision, but many others would prefer to write to someone. We would all appreciate your take on the situation."
>
> I'll let you all know if and when she responds.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 16:44:27
Carol earlier:
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
Carol again:
Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
"We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
"On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
"I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
* I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
* It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
* It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
* It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
* And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
"I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
"All best wishes from Annette"
Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
Carol
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
Carol again:
Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
"We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
"On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
"I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
* I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
* It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
* It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
* It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
* And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
"I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
"All best wishes from Annette"
Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
Carol
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 17:21:54
Thank you for this - it's a very interesting and helpful message from Annette.
--- On Sat, 16/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
To:
Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 16:44
Carol earlier:
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
Carol again:
Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
"We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
"On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
"I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
* I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
* It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
* It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
* It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
* And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
"I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
"All best wishes from Annette"
Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
Carol
--- On Sat, 16/3/13, justcarol67 <justcarol67@...> wrote:
From: justcarol67 <justcarol67@...>
Subject: Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
To:
Date: Saturday, 16 March, 2013, 16:44
Carol earlier:
> I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
>
> "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
Carol again:
Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
"We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
"On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
"I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
* I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
* It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
* It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
* It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
* And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
"I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
"All best wishes from Annette"
Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
Carol
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 17:27:44
Carol...an excellent reply from Annette. And a thank you to you for posting it. I would love to know what Phil Stone thoughts are on a ledger stone. Hopefully now he is back we will find out. I think we do need guidance from the Society as to what to do next and we do need to be kept aware of any developments. I felt encouraged by Annette's thinking that York Minster,who have tried to keep out of the fray, might now perhaps be more interested. Eileen
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> >
> > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
>
> > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
>
> Carol again:
>
> Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
>
> "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
>
> "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
>
> "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
>
> "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
>
> "All best wishes from Annette"
>
> Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> >
> > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
>
> > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
>
> Carol again:
>
> Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
>
> "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
>
> "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
>
> "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
>
> "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
>
> "All best wishes from Annette"
>
> Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
>
> Carol
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-16 18:38:24
Thanks for sharing the email.
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 16, 2013, at 1:27 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol...an excellent reply from Annette. And a thank you to you for posting it. I would love to know what Phil Stone thoughts are on a ledger stone. Hopefully now he is back we will find out. I think we do need guidance from the Society as to what to do next and we do need to be kept aware of any developments. I felt encouraged by Annette's thinking that York Minster,who have tried to keep out of the fray, might now perhaps be more interested. Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 16, 2013, at 1:27 PM, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> Carol...an excellent reply from Annette. And a thank you to you for posting it. I would love to know what Phil Stone thoughts are on a ledger stone. Hopefully now he is back we will find out. I think we do need guidance from the Society as to what to do next and we do need to be kept aware of any developments. I felt encouraged by Annette's thinking that York Minster,who have tried to keep out of the fray, might now perhaps be more interested. Eileen
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-17 00:04:57
Thank you for this Carol and thank you Annette for keeping us up to date. It is good to know what is going on, personally I feel a bit happier having read this
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> >
> > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
>
> > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
>
> Carol again:
>
> Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
>
> "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
>
> "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
>
> "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
>
> "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
>
> "All best wishes from Annette"
>
> Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
>
> > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> >
> > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
>
> > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
>
> Carol again:
>
> Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
>
> "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
>
> "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
>
> "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
>
> "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
>
> "All best wishes from Annette"
>
> Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
>
> Carol
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-17 18:09:35
I have been away from the internet for a day or so, so am slowly working my way through posts since yesterday. I like Annette's letter and I think it goes to the heart of some of the issues. Since the Dean who was happy to negotiate for Leicester is now at York, it would have been very difficult for York to then publicly ask for Richard to be re-interred there. This possibility ought to be made available to the Minster. I don't think at this point that there is huge overwhelming support for Richard to be laid in Leicester Cathedral, but there is significant support for elsewhere and this ought to be voiced as loudly as possible to the people who might carry some influence - the Under-Secretary for Justice, the Society. And York Minster themselves ought to be encouraged to stay "in the running" with respectful letters of support and good wishes.
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Carol...an excellent reply from Annette. And a thank you to you for posting it. I would love to know what Phil Stone thoughts are on a ledger stone. Hopefully now he is back we will find out. I think we do need guidance from the Society as to what to do next and we do need to be kept aware of any developments. I felt encouraged by Annette's thinking that York Minster,who have tried to keep out of the fray, might now perhaps be more interested. Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Carol...an excellent reply from Annette. And a thank you to you for posting it. I would love to know what Phil Stone thoughts are on a ledger stone. Hopefully now he is back we will find out. I think we do need guidance from the Society as to what to do next and we do need to be kept aware of any developments. I felt encouraged by Annette's thinking that York Minster,who have tried to keep out of the fray, might now perhaps be more interested. Eileen
>
>
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-19 23:53:29
I would also like to say thanks as I also felt better after reading the post but I do have some concern over putting to much info out for anyone to read (not that any one has and I hope I dont upset anyone buy saying this)its just I know that this may sound silly to some but the way that I look at is Leicester County Council / Leicester University is they have a gun and you dont give someone with a gun ammunition to shoot you with
Sami
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Carol and thank you Annette for keeping us up to date. It is good to know what is going on, personally I feel a bit happier having read this
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Sami
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Carol and thank you Annette for keeping us up to date. It is good to know what is going on, personally I feel a bit happier having read this
>
> --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> >
> > Carol earlier:
> >
> > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > >
> > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> >
> > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> >
> > Carol again:
> >
> > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> >
> > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> >
> > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> >
> > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> >
> > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> >
> > "All best wishes from Annette"
> >
> > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> >
> > Carol
> >
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-20 10:02:16
Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Sam" <willfulblue@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would also like to say thanks as I also felt better after reading the post but I do have some concern over putting to much info out for anyone to read (not that any one has and I hope I dont upset anyone buy saying this)its just I know that this may sound silly to some but the way that I look at is Leicester County Council / Leicester University is they have a gun and you dont give someone with a gun ammunition to shoot you with
> Sami
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for this Carol and thank you Annette for keeping us up to date. It is good to know what is going on, personally I feel a bit happier having read this
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > > >
> > > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> > >
> > > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> > >
> > > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> > >
> > > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> > >
> > > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> > >
> > > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> > >
> > > "All best wishes from Annette"
> > >
> > > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "Sam" <willfulblue@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I would also like to say thanks as I also felt better after reading the post but I do have some concern over putting to much info out for anyone to read (not that any one has and I hope I dont upset anyone buy saying this)its just I know that this may sound silly to some but the way that I look at is Leicester County Council / Leicester University is they have a gun and you dont give someone with a gun ammunition to shoot you with
> Sami
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for this Carol and thank you Annette for keeping us up to date. It is good to know what is going on, personally I feel a bit happier having read this
> >
> > --- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Carol earlier:
> > >
> > > > I have just e-mailed the following message to Annette:
> > > >
> > > > "Hi, Annette. A number of forum members are incensed by Leicester Cathedral's Brief for Architects, in part because it states that Richard performed unspecified dishonorable acts and lost heart at Bosworth when he saw all his men going over to Tudor (a flat-out error) and in part because it seems to suggest removing the slab honoring Richard now in place and replacing it with another slab in a different location, altogether rejecting the Richard III Society's proposed design for a tomb.[snip]
> > >
> > > > "Do you know if the Society has taken any action about this situation? Also, do you have any suggestions for members upset with this decision? [snip]"
> > >
> > > Carol again:
> > >
> > > Annette has already sent her response and authorized me to post it. Here it is:
> > >
> > > "We got the message a few weeks ago that the cathedral were no longer supporting the proposals put to them in 2010 about the tomb and its location, which Philippa thought were agreed long ago. They indicated that they were going to place "all possibilities" before their architectural team and come up with a recommendation. Our exposure of the designs for the tomb to the media a couple of weeks ago was timed to get publicity and support from the public for the tomb BEFORE the cathedral rejected it, which I gather they did on Wednesday. There was an informal poll on this website,
> > > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Richard-III-Tomb-design-does-meet-Leicester/story-18391233-detail/story.html#axzz2NJYeJpAe
> > > where you could vote for the tomb or some other memorial, and it came out overwhelmingly in favour of the tomb. Now there's another website story about this where people can click "Like" or whatever at:
> > > http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/tomb-right-thing-king/story-18422223-detail/story.html#axzz2NWZhWt9o
> > >
> > > "On Tuesday 12 March there was a Westminster Hall debate instigated by Hugh Bayley, MP for York. Westminster Hall is a kind of overflow venue for House of Commons debates, so it will have been recorded in Hansard, which can be viewed online. It was only 30 minutes, so it won't be a long report. We didn't know what he was going to say, and I have to be careful now that Philippa has handed over a lot of the responsibility for the reburial to the Richard III Society. Unfortunately the Society's chairman, Phil Stone, has been overseas for about 10-12 days and only returned today. I know his personal opinion about the idea of a ledger stone, but I don't know the Society's official position. I hear they have an Executive Committee meeting during the coming week (Wednesday I think) when I assume they will decide what line to take.
> > >
> > > "I can give you my personal reaction to the present situation, but I can't speak for anyone else.
> > > 1. Ever since we got the hint that the cathedral is resiling from what we thought they'd agreed, I have been saying that we should cease supporting it as Richard's last resting place unless they agree to a tomb that the people responsible for finding him consider satisfactory. It is not necessary to set up an alternative - merely the withdrawal of the support of Ricardians should be enough to worry the Leicester City Council, who would be incensed if the city lost him after all this.
> > > 2. Hugh Bayley is obviously in favour of Richard's burial in York, but York Minster has indicated that they don't want to enter the fray. Meanwhile Bayley has flagged up the enormous controversy now raging, with some of the communications received being so incendiary that they've been passed to the police. So feelings are obviously running high. I personally don't think this is helpful, but that's just me.
> > > 3. Another MP, Chris Skidmore, has secured a House of Commons debate (he says) on a motion to give Richard a state funeral. This debate, if it happened, wouldn't be until next year. He is also suggesting a "compromise" proposal involving Richard lying in state for a certain period in York. I'm not sure where he thinks he ought to be buried.
> > > 4. Hugh Bayley has consulted many expert authorities like English Heritage, etc, and in particular organisations responsible for memorial tombs. His proposal is that the Ministry of Justice should set up an independent committee composed of experts like these, to consider the various options and make recommendations as to what they think is appropriate for Richard's reinterment.
> > > 5. Basically I think this would be a great proposal to support.
> > > * I think it's desirable to remove the 'finders keepers' accusation surrounding Leicester, and now that he's been identified, we no longer need the backstop of where to accommodate him had the identification been inconclusive.
> > > * It would fire a warning shot across the bows of Leicester cathedral (and the County Council) letting them know they'll have to apply like anyone else if they want him.
> > > * It would also, I think, open the doors to a statement of interest from York (and/or other places), because it's just possible that they might have recused themselves previously through not wanting to go head to head with their brethren in Leicester: if it's now a matter of dealing with an independent body, they might feel differently.
> > > * It would hopefully pre-empt the possibility of debating an absurdly unlikely state funeral in a time of recession, which would only succeed in setting Richard up for public disparagement on the part of those opposing the motion, and which would set us back several months if we have to wait for the debate to take place before making reburial arrangements.
> > > * And finally, an independent body would I think give due recognition to the standing of the RIII Society and Philippa, which is presently being undermined by Leicester cathedral and university. In particular our publicly popular tomb design could not be ignored, and our financial clout would be taken very seriously indeed by an independent body who would need to look at the financial implications of whatever option they recommended.
> > >
> > > "I have suggested to Philippa that the Society should put a petition in support of this (addressed to the Ministry of Justice) on the government's petition website, and we have been discussing this and its possible wording. Heaven knows whether the Exec Committee will go that far, but I just think it would carry more weight and frighten Leicester cathedral if it was seen as official Society policy. However, it could be done by an individual anyway, so this may be the next move, whether officially or unofficially. Perhaps forum members might like to look at Hansard, think this over, and see whether we couldn't all unite behind a really knowledgeable independent group of experts who would presumably call for submissions representing the various cases that people want to put forward. I'll let you know what progress is made in the coming days.
> > >
> > > "All best wishes from Annette"
> > >
> > > Good to know that they're as concerned as we are and doing what they can. Also note that Phil Stone has been out of town, which explains why he hasn't been answering his e-mail. It might be a good idea to hold off deluging them for a while and let them carry out their plans. I'll post on this topic again when she updates me on their progress.
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> >
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-20 15:10:23
"christineholmes651@..." wrote:
>
> Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
Carol
>
> Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
Carol responds:
Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
Carol
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-21 09:07:07
Hello Carol and all
Lets hope the EC lets the branches know too whats what, as we have had very little come through of any importance so far.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
Lets hope the EC lets the branches know too whats what, as we have had very little come through of any importance so far.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
2013-03-21 10:07:21
Thank you both Carol and Annette - I've just come late to this thread but this all sounds very promising. I'll look forward to hearing more about what has transpired at the meeting. Best wishes, CarolFW
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
Re: So many posts, so little time........
2013-03-21 18:13:54
I had jury duty (sad case) last week and came back to almost 700 posts! I have finally read them all. Thanks everyone for the very interesting comments.
Vickie
From: caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
Thank you both Carol and Annette - I've just come late to this thread but this all sounds very promising. I'll look forward to hearing more about what has transpired at the meeting. Best wishes, CarolFW
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
Vickie
From: caroljfw <cfellinghamwebb@...>
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 5:07 AM
Subject: Re: My note to Annette re the Cathedral's Brief
Thank you both Carol and Annette - I've just come late to this thread but this all sounds very promising. I'll look forward to hearing more about what has transpired at the meeting. Best wishes, CarolFW
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> "christineholmes651@" wrote:
> >
>
> > Hello All, Carol did the right thing to put Annette's message for forum to see, no one else is telling us what is going on so far that includes the Society EC.
> > The Richard III Society Executive Committee are holding a meeting today, so lets see what comes out of that shall we.
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Thanks, Christine. She asked me to post it, and she carefully distinguished between her own views and the facts, just as she would have done if she were still a member here. Also, if I'm not mistaken, Neil has taken measures to prevent our posts from being read by outsiders, previously a serious problem. Now only members can read them (again, if I'm not mistaken).
>
> I don't know whether Annette will be present at the executive committee meeting, but if not, I'm sure that Dr. Phil Stone will let her know what happens there. I'll pass on anything that she authorizes me to tell you.
>
> Carol
>
Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 10:36:28
There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Sandra
Sandra
Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 11:03:15
I found it on a website (think it was a Tudor one) which I cannot now recall - must keep that notebook! It didn't give a name to the woman, but made the unlikely statement that he may have had an illegitimate child. Other than that at one point he was intended to have married Maud Herbert, but I don't think that's what you mean. Really sorry - try a websearch. H
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 10:36
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Sandra
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 10:36
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Sandra
Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 11:43:20
From: SandraMachin
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
> There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman
> Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485.
> I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
After his uncle Jasper did a runner and left four-year-old Henry as a hunted
refugee in Wales, young Henry was first captured and then fostered by the
Yorkist officer William(?) Herbert. He grew up with Herbert's daughter Maud
and was supposed to be going to marry her, just like Richard and Anne, but
then Herbert was executed (by Warwick's lot?) and the marriage never took
place.
Is she the same Maud Herbert who married Northumberland?
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:36 AM
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
> There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman
> Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485.
> I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
After his uncle Jasper did a runner and left four-year-old Henry as a hunted
refugee in Wales, young Henry was first captured and then fostered by the
Yorkist officer William(?) Herbert. He grew up with Herbert's daughter Maud
and was supposed to be going to marry her, just like Richard and Anne, but
then Herbert was executed (by Warwick's lot?) and the marriage never took
place.
Is she the same Maud Herbert who married Northumberland?
Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 14:20:00
www.Tudorplace.com.ar?
Once you get over the heavily negative spin, the genealogy is rather good.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
I found it on a website (think it was a Tudor one) which I cannot now recall - must keep that notebook! It didn't give a name to the woman, but made the unlikely statement that he may have had an illegitimate child. Other than that at one point he was intended to have married Maud Herbert, but I don't think that's what you mean. Really sorry - try a websearch. H
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 10:36
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Sandra
Once you get over the heavily negative spin, the genealogy is rather good.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hilary Jones
To:
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
I found it on a website (think it was a Tudor one) which I cannot now recall - must keep that notebook! It didn't give a name to the woman, but made the unlikely statement that he may have had an illegitimate child. Other than that at one point he was intended to have married Maud Herbert, but I don't think that's what you mean. Really sorry - try a websearch. H
________________________________
From: SandraMachin <sandramachin@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 10:36
Subject: Henry Tudor in Brittany
There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Sandra
Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 15:22:03
"SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
>
> There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Carol responds:
Since Maude Herbert was discussed in the same thread, you might try doing a search of this site for her name. (Of course, you'll also find the last few posts in this thread, but just ignore them.)
"Henry Tudor Britanny" (minus the quotation marks) might also work.
Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
Carol
>
> There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
Carol responds:
Since Maude Herbert was discussed in the same thread, you might try doing a search of this site for her name. (Of course, you'll also find the last few posts in this thread, but just ignore them.)
"Henry Tudor Britanny" (minus the quotation marks) might also work.
Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
Carol
Northumberland's wife and 1st daughter
2013-03-22 17:40:54
Did Northumberland's Maud died in 1485 just before Bosworth? Some sources say she died in July 1485, some in 1495, and he apparently had a daughter (Elizabeth) born after 1485.
Also...does anyone know the story behind this: In 1488 Henry VII suggested a marriage between Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Anne of Brittany, but in December 1489 the executors of Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland paid the King £4000 for Buckingham's marriage to Percy's eldest daughter Eleanor (d. 1530).
Why in the world would Northumberland be willing to buy off the king at so extravagant a price, so his daughter could marry Edward Stafford (the son of the Buckingham that betrayed Richard)?
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
Also...does anyone know the story behind this: In 1488 Henry VII suggested a marriage between Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Anne of Brittany, but in December 1489 the executors of Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland paid the King £4000 for Buckingham's marriage to Percy's eldest daughter Eleanor (d. 1530).
Why in the world would Northumberland be willing to buy off the king at so extravagant a price, so his daughter could marry Edward Stafford (the son of the Buckingham that betrayed Richard)?
~Weds
--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
Re: Henry Tudor in Brittany
2013-03-22 21:05:40
Sandra, I think the URL you want is www.peerage.org/genealogy/roland.htm
There is a long collection of articles concerning Roland de Velville who was considered by some to have been fathered by Henry of Richmond while in Brittany. I don't think the putative mother is mentioned but the articles are long & detailed involving arguments among scholars. You read what you can face & take your choice.
T Penn mentions Velville once in "Winter King" but says nothing of his parentage.
Happy hunting!
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 22 Mar 2013, at 15:21, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Since Maude Herbert was discussed in the same thread, you might try doing a search of this site for her name. (Of course, you'll also find the last few posts in this thread, but just ignore them.)
>
> "Henry Tudor Britanny" (minus the quotation marks) might also work.
>
> Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
>
> Carol
>
>
There is a long collection of articles concerning Roland de Velville who was considered by some to have been fathered by Henry of Richmond while in Brittany. I don't think the putative mother is mentioned but the articles are long & detailed involving arguments among scholars. You read what you can face & take your choice.
T Penn mentions Velville once in "Winter King" but says nothing of his parentage.
Happy hunting!
Jan.
Sent from my iPad
On 22 Mar 2013, at 15:21, "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
> "SandraMachin" <sandramachin@...> wrote:
> >
> > There was a discussion recently that mentioned the identity of the woman Henry Tudor was believed to have loved before he come to England in 1485. I cannot find this thread now. Can anyone help with details?
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Since Maude Herbert was discussed in the same thread, you might try doing a search of this site for her name. (Of course, you'll also find the last few posts in this thread, but just ignore them.)
>
> "Henry Tudor Britanny" (minus the quotation marks) might also work.
>
> Regarding whether this Maud(e) was the same one who married Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, she can't be the same person since Northumberland married his Maud (the sister of William Herbert, Richard's son-in-law) between 1473 and 1476--unless Henry didn't know that she was already married.
>
> Carol
>
>
Re: Northumberland's wife and 1st daughter
2013-03-23 20:10:58
Wednesday, that's a really interesting question and I have absolutely no idea. Dynastic ambitions?
Liz
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 17:40
Subject: Northumberland's wife and 1st daughter
snip >
Also...does anyone know the story behind this: In 1488 Henry VII suggested a marriage between Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Anne of Brittany, but in December 1489 the executors of Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland paid the King £4000 for Buckingham's marriage to Percy's eldest daughter Eleanor (d. 1530).
Why in the world would Northumberland be willing to buy off the king at so extravagant a price, so his daughter could marry Edward Stafford (the son of the Buckingham that betrayed Richard)?
~Weds
.
Liz
________________________________
From: wednesday_mc <wednesday.mac@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 22 March 2013, 17:40
Subject: Northumberland's wife and 1st daughter
snip >
Also...does anyone know the story behind this: In 1488 Henry VII suggested a marriage between Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Anne of Brittany, but in December 1489 the executors of Henry Percy, 4th Earl of Northumberland paid the King £4000 for Buckingham's marriage to Percy's eldest daughter Eleanor (d. 1530).
Why in the world would Northumberland be willing to buy off the king at so extravagant a price, so his daughter could marry Edward Stafford (the son of the Buckingham that betrayed Richard)?
~Weds
.
Richard III on Amazon
As an Amazon Associate, We earn from qualifying purchases.