Judicial Review

A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.

Hello, At least they are trying to do something and good luck to them, I will support them all the way.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine

--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.
>

By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as their website proclaims?

How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I particularly like "essential travel".

As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising statement.

I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick, so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do Twitter. I do not know how to find it."

So, yes, I'm very sceptical.

Jonathan






________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
Subject: Judicial Review


 
A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.

Me too.  Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
 
As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he say?   He's a professional Yorkshireman.
 
Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
 
 

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 
By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as their website proclaims?

How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I particularly like "essential travel".

As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising statement.

I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick, so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do Twitter. I do not know how to find it."

So, yes, I'm very sceptical.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
Subject: Judicial Review


 
A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.

To be fair, Stephen Nicolay (one of the collateral descendants) links to the Twitter account that has dubious provenance, rather than says the endorsement comes from that.  But even if it is genuine, it doesn't really assuage my concerns about how the whole thing is being managed.

Jonathan




________________________________
From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
Subject: Re: Judicial Review


 
By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as their website proclaims?

How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I particularly like "essential travel".

As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising statement.

I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick, so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do Twitter. I do not know how to find it."

So, yes, I'm very sceptical.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
Subject: Judicial Review


 
A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.

This is what the website says:

"Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is a
private company registered in England & Wales.  Registration
number: 8455961"

It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector / campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's just the signals it gives off).

Jonathan




________________________________
From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
To: "" <>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
Subject: Re: Judicial Review


 
Me too.  Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
 
As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he say?   He's a professional Yorkshireman.
 
Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
 
 

From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
To: ">
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 
By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as their website proclaims?

How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I particularly like "essential travel".

As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising statement.

I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick, so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do Twitter. I do not know how to find it."

So, yes, I'm very sceptical.

Jonathan

________________________________
From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
Subject: Judicial Review

 
A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.

There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.

I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
Leicestershire....

Best wishes
Christine

Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:

> This is what the website says:
>
> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is a
> private company registered in England & Wales.  Registration
> number: 8455961"
>
> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> just the signals it gives off).
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: ""
> <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>
>  
> Me too.  Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
>  
> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> say?   He's a professional Yorkshireman.
>  
> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To:
> ">
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> their website proclaims?
>
> How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list
> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I
> particularly like "essential travel".
>
> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very
> self-aggrandising statement.
>
> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the
> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
>
> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> Subject: Judicial Review
>
>  
> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties, like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on, Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.

Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:

>
> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
>
> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> Leicestershire....
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
>
> > This is what the website says:
> >
> > "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is a
> > private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > number: 8455961"
> >
> > It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > just the signals it gives off).
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > To: ""
> > <>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >
> >
> >
> > Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> >
> > As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> >
> > Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > To:
> > ">
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >
> >
> > By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > their website proclaims?
> >
> > How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > particularly like "essential travel".
> >
> > As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very
> > self-aggrandising statement.
> >
> > I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> >
> > So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > Subject: Judicial Review
> >
> >
> > A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > mind.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Agree Jonathon, it is just too opportunistic. I am sceptical about it but we will have wait and see what happens.

--- In , Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...> wrote:
>
> This is what the website says:
>
> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is a
> private company registered in England & Wales.  Registration
> number: 8455961"
>
> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector / campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's just the signals it gives off).
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> To: "" <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>
>  
> Me too.  Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
>  
> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he say?   He's a professional Yorkshireman.
>  
> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
>  
>  
>
> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> To: "@[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as their website proclaims?
>
> How are the funds they are raising to be used?  They provide a list of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin.  I particularly like "essential travel".
>
> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his Majesty’s representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising statement.
>
> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick, so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable.  Also, the "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited Company.  And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
>
> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
>
> Jonathan
>
> ________________________________
> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> Subject: Judicial Review
>
>  
> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
in a position to determine the outcome.

A J

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>
> >
> > There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> > programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> > indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> > The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> > hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> >
> > I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> > thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> > Leicestershire....
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Christine
> >
> > Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
> >
> > > This is what the website says:
> > >
> > > "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > > Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> a
> > > private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > > number: 8455961"
> > >
> > > It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > > campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > > just the signals it gives off).
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > To: ""
> > > <>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > > that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > > buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> > >
> > > As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > > say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> > >
> > > Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > > To:
> > > "@
> yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > >
> > >
> > > By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > > their website proclaims?
> > >
> > > How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > > of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > > particularly like "essential travel".
> > >
> > > As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > > Majestyýs representatives and voice", that's a very
> > > self-aggrandising statement.
> > >
> > > I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > > so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > > resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > > in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > > "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > > in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > > Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > > Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > > Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> > >
> > > So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> > >
> > > Jonathan
> > >
> > > ________________________________
> > > From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > > Subject: Judicial Review
> > >
> > >
> > > A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > > calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > > described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > > have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > > when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > > Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > > mind.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

I wrote to the Acting Dean of the Cathedral, the City Mayor of Leicester, the Chancellor & the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni of Leicester & got standard replies from the first 2. I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.

Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> in a position to determine the outcome.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
>> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
>> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
>> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
>> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
>> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
>> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
>>
>> Jan.
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
>>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
>>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
>>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
>>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
>>>
>>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
>>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
>>> Leicestershire....
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>> Christine
>>>
>>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
>>>
>>>> This is what the website says:
>>>>
>>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
>>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
>> a
>>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
>>>> number: 8455961"
>>>>
>>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
>>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
>>>> just the signals it gives off).
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
>>>> To: ""
>>>> <>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
>>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
>>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
>>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
>>>>
>>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
>>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
>>>> To:
>>>> "@
>> yahoogroups.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
>>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
>>>> their website proclaims?
>>>>
>>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
>>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
>>>> particularly like "essential travel".
>>>>
>>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
>>>> Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very
>>>> self-aggrandising statement.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
>>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
>>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
>>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
>>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
>>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
>>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
>>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
>>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
>>>>
>>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
>>>>
>>>> Jonathan
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
>>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
>>>> Subject: Judicial Review
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
>>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
>>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
>>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
>>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
>>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
>>>> mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I'm glad to hear that you wrote, even if all you did get were standard
replies. It seems as if the powers-that-be are paying some attention,
despite form replies.

A J

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jan Mulrenan
<janmulrenan@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I wrote to the Acting Dean of the Cathedral, the City Mayor of Leicester,
> the Chancellor & the Vice-Chancellor of the Uni of Leicester & got standard
> replies from the first 2. I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.
>
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> > Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that
> it
> > does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you
> do
> > have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> > in a position to determine the outcome.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <
> janmulrenan@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
>
> >>
> >>
> >> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> >> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> >> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched
> on,
> >> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> >> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon
> the
> >> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> >> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> >>
> >> Jan.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> >>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> >>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> >>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> >>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> >>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> >>> Leicestershire....
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>> Christine
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
> >>>
> >>>> This is what the website says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third
> Campaign
> >>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> >> a
> >>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> >>>> number: 8455961"
> >>>>
> >>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> >>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> >>>> just the signals it gives off).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> >>>> To: "
> >
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> >>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> >>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> >>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> "@
> >> yahoogroups.com>
>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> >>>> their website proclaims?
> >>>>
> >>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> >>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> >>>> particularly like "essential travel".
> >>>>
> >>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> >>>> Majestyýs representatives and voice", that's a very
> >>>> self-aggrandising statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> >>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> >>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> >>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> >>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> >>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> >>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> >>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> >>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> >>>>
> >>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> >>>> Subject: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> >>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> >>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> >>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> >>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> >>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> >>>> mind.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

That does not sound promising Jan...Eileen

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> . I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> > Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> > does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> > have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> > in a position to determine the outcome.
> >
> > A J
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> >> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> >> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> >> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> >> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> >> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> >> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> >>
> >> Jan.
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> >>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> >>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> >>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> >>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> >>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> >>> Leicestershire....
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>> Christine
> >>>
> >>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
> >>>
> >>>> This is what the website says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> >>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> >> a
> >>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> >>>> number: 8455961"
> >>>>
> >>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> >>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> >>>> just the signals it gives off).
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> >>>> To: ""
> >>>> <>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> >>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> >>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> >>>>
> >>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> >>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> >>>> To:
> >>>> "@...@
> >> yahoogroups.com>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> >>>> their website proclaims?
> >>>>
> >>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> >>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> >>>> particularly like "essential travel".
> >>>>
> >>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> >>>> Majesty’s representatives and voice", that's a very
> >>>> self-aggrandising statement.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> >>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> >>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> >>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> >>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> >>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> >>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> >>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> >>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> >>>>
> >>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jonathan
> >>>>
> >>>> ________________________________
> >>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> >>>> Subject: Judicial Review
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> >>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> >>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> >>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> >>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> >>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> >>>> mind.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

No, you're right, Eileen, but the more people who write in the better. This new campaign had a point when it raised the issue of consultation. We're probably not going to be consulted in any way that means we could influence matters, but we can all kick up our little bit of fuss. The King is worth a stamp!

Jan.

Sent from my iPad

On 26 Mar 2013, at 16:08, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:

> That does not sound promising Jan...Eileen
>
> --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
> >
> > . I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
> >
> > > You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> > > Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> > > does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> > > have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> > > in a position to determine the outcome.
> > >
> > > A J
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
> > >
> > >> **
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> > >> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> > >> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> > >> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> > >> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> > >> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> > >> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> > >>
> > >> Jan.
> > >>
> > >> Sent from my iPad
> > >>
> > >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> > >>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> > >>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> > >>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> > >>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> > >>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> > >>> Leicestershire....
> > >>>
> > >>> Best wishes
> > >>> Christine
> > >>>
> > >>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> This is what the website says:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > >>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> > >> a
> > >>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > >>>> number: 8455961"
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > >>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > >>>> just the signals it gives off).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jonathan
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > >>>> To: ">
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > >>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > >>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > >>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > >>>> To:
> > >>>> "@...@
> > >> yahoogroups.com>
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > >>>> their website proclaims?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > >>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > >>>> particularly like "essential travel".
> > >>>>
> > >>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > >>>> Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very
> > >>>> self-aggrandising statement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > >>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > >>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > >>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > >>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > >>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > >>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > >>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > >>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Jonathan
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ________________________________
> > >>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > >>>> Subject: Judicial Review
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > >>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > >>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > >>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > >>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > >>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > >>>> mind.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Definitely....I so agree with you...great oaks from little acorns grow...:0)

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> No, you're right, Eileen, but the more people who write in the better. This new campaign had a point when it raised the issue of consultation. We're probably not going to be consulted in any way that means we could influence matters, but we can all kick up our little bit of fuss. The King is worth a stamp!
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 16:08, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > That does not sound promising Jan...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> > > > Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> > > > does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> > > > have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> > > > in a position to determine the outcome.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> > > >> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> > > >> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> > > >> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> > > >> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> > > >> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> > > >> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my iPad
> > > >>
> > > >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> > > >>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> > > >>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> > > >>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> > > >>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> > > >>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> > > >>> Leicestershire....
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best wishes
> > > >>> Christine
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> This is what the website says:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > > >>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> > > >> a
> > > >>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > > >>>> number: 8455961"
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > > >>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > > >>>> just the signals it gives off).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathan
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > >>>> To: "@[email protected]>
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > > >>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > > >>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > > >>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>
> > > >>>> To:
> > > >>>> "@@
> > > >> yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > > >>>> their website proclaims?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > > >>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > > >>>> particularly like "essential travel".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > > >>>> Majesty’s representatives and voice", that's a very
> > > >>>> self-aggrandising statement.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > > >>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > > >>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > > >>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > > >>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > > >>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > > >>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > > >>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > > >>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathan
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > > >>>> Subject: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > > >>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > > >>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > > >>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > > >>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > > >>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > > >>>> mind.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

The Society may have stated that it does not have a preference - this is not a private matter anyway and they have stated as much in their public statements on the Society webpage - but actually, by negotiating for Leicester in 2010+, they clearly stated a preference - and one which I think a good many of their members would profoundly disagree with.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> in a position to determine the outcome.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...>wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> > exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> > like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> > Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> > their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> > R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> > campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> >
> > Jan.
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> > On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> > > programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> > > indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> > > The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> > > hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> > >
> > > I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> > > thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> > > Leicestershire....
> > >
> > > Best wishes
> > > Christine
> > >
> > > Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>:
> > >
> > > > This is what the website says:
> > > >
> > > > "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > > > Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> > a
> > > > private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > > > number: 8455961"
> > > >
> > > > It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > > > campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > > > just the signals it gives off).
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...>
> > > > To: ""
> > > > <>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > > > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > > > that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > > > buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> > > >
> > > > As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > > > say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> > > >
> > > > Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@...>
> > > > To:
> > > > "@...@
> > yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > > > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > > > their website proclaims?
> > > >
> > > > How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > > > of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > > > particularly like "essential travel".
> > > >
> > > > As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > > > Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very
> > > > self-aggrandising statement.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > > > so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > > > resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > > > in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > > > "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > > > in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > > > Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > > > Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > > > Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> > > >
> > > > So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > > > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > > > Subject: Judicial Review
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > > > calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > > > described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > > > have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > > > when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > > > Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > > > mind.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

I agree.
That no-one outside of a few members of the Society, the Cathedral Chapter of Leicester and the City Council of Leicester, determined all this, without wider consultation, is entirely the thing which is being held up to account, and deservedly so. This should not have been arranged in 2010. This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening. Everyone should be objecting vehemently on this alone, regardless of any legal challenge: this is totally outside local authority business, I would argue. And the more letters objecting, the better.

--- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@...> wrote:
>
> No, you're right, Eileen, but the more people who write in the better. This new campaign had a point when it raised the issue of consultation. We're probably not going to be consulted in any way that means we could influence matters, but we can all kick up our little bit of fuss. The King is worth a stamp!
>
> Jan.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 16:08, "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> > That does not sound promising Jan...Eileen
> >
> > --- In , Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@> wrote:
> > >
> > > . I was annoyed by the comments of the Acting Dean.
> > >
> > > Jan.
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPad
> > >
> > > On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:52, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're probably right about 10 years from now. On the other hand, the
> > > > Richard III Society has stated privately to at least a couple of us that it
> > > > does not intend to take a position on Richard's re-interment. So if you do
> > > > have an opinion on the matter, your'e on your own to express it to anyone
> > > > in a position to determine the outcome.
> > > >
> > > > A J
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Jan Mulrenan <janmulrenan@>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> **
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> IIRC the interview centred on a legal challenge to the terms of the
> > > >> exhumation licence & on a lack of consultation with interested parties,
> > > >> like the "collateral descendants". Human rights legislation was touched on,
> > > >> Article 8 IIRC. I don't think I learned much that I didn't pick up from
> > > >> their website. It does come across as slick. In 10 years' time I reckon the
> > > >> R3 Soc will still be active, if not as frantically as now, & the new
> > > >> campaign will not, though to be fair it isn't intended to be.
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sent from my iPad
> > > >>
> > > >> On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:58, Christine Headley <lists@> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There was an interview with their lawyer on the Radio 4 lunchtime news
> > > >>> programme, the World at One. No mention of identities, nor any
> > > >>> indication that Richard's direct line died out so soon after he died.
> > > >>> The interview should be available on Listen Again in a couple of
> > > >>> hours; it's about half an hour into the programme.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't think it helps their case to involve Geoffrey Boycott. For one
> > > >>> thing, the BBC's Cricket Correspondent, Jonathan Agnew, played for
> > > >>> Leicestershire....
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Best wishes
> > > >>> Christine
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Quoting Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> This is what the website says:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> "Plantagenet Alliance Limited (formerly King Richard the Third Campaign
> > > >>>> Limited) is the sole administrator of the King Richard Campaign and is
> > > >> a
> > > >>>> private company registered in England & Wales. Registration
> > > >>>> number: 8455961"
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> It certainly isn't set up in the manner of a third sector /
> > > >>>> campaigning organisation (not that I'm saying it has to be - it's
> > > >>>> just the signals it gives off).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathan
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@>
> > > >>>> To: "@[email protected]>
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:26
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Me too. Compare it with Michael Ibsen who has made it very clear
> > > >>>> that he won't be drawn into saying where he thinks Richard should be
> > > >>>> buried even though he's been involved in this thing for so long.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As for Boycott, even if the comment is genuine, what else would he
> > > >>>> say? He's a professional Yorkshireman.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Incidentally is it a "limited company" rather than non profit?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> From: Jonathan Evans <jmcevans98@>
> > > >>>> To:
> > > >>>> "@@
> > > >> yahoogroups.com>
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 13:12
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> By what criteria is theirs the "Official King Richard Campaign", as
> > > >>>> their website proclaims?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> How are the funds they are raising to be used? They provide a list
> > > >>>> of general catch-all terms relating to day-to-day admin. I
> > > >>>> particularly like "essential travel".
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> > > >>>> Majesty’s representatives and voice", that's a very
> > > >>>> self-aggrandising statement.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I'm sure everything's above board, but the whole thing's so slick,
> > > >>>> so corporate, so clearly well-resourced (which makes the immediate
> > > >>>> resort to fundraising seem opportunistic) and so carefully wrapped
> > > >>>> in legalese that I feel immediately uncomfortable. Also, the
> > > >>>> "statements of support" seem to be for the proposition for reburial
> > > >>>> in York, rather than declarations made in favour of this new Limited
> > > >>>> Company. And one of these, from "Geoff Boycott OBE" comes via a
> > > >>>> Twitter account that Boycott has said he does not use: "I do not do
> > > >>>> Twitter. I do not know how to find it."
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So, yes, I'm very sceptical.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Jonathan
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ________________________________
> > > >>>> From: ricard1an <mailto:maryfriend%40waitrose.com>
> > > >>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 12:21
> > > >>>> Subject: Judicial Review
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A Mail journalist is reporting that the Plantagenet Alliance is
> > > >>>> calling for a judicial review of Richard's burial place. They are
> > > >>>> described as "Richard's descendents", however as we know he didn't
> > > >>>> have any descendents only collateral descendents. Where were they
> > > >>>> when the Society, Philippa andf John were fighting to discover
> > > >>>> Richard's burial in the Greyfriars? Bandwagons and jumping come to
> > > >>>> mind.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
 
Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
 
Liz
 
 

From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 
Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.

Richard *needs* a judicial review, if only because that's the only way anyone might possibly wrest his remains away from the university. They didn't want him, didn't think they'd find him, but they sure as *^%%#! think they own him now.

His bones mean publishing opportunities, tenure, worldwide fame, profits and attention on whatever the university can create out of the information provided by his bones/life/death, a life-long career in lectures and ongoing books and other publications to current and future generations of scholars in multiple disciplines.

He's a money- and career-making godsend to the city and the university; they already feel they own him, and they're not going to let him go without a fight. The city will fight hard to keep him too: tourism dollars are shining in their eyes and they've already invested in a city museum for him.

What's the saying? Something like, "The avalanche has already started rolling downhill, it's too late for the snowballs to vote." Leicester, et. al. has shoved Phillipa, JAH, the Society and all other "fans" aside. The white tower of academia and the black tower of commerce have claimed him; all others need not apply.

Since the Society has stepped aside, I suspect that when the legal dust settles, the resulting historical tale engraved in stone will be that Leicester University found Richard III's remains, and therefore they own him. Phillipa, JAH, and the Society -- not to mention all the people who love Richard and donated to help find him -- they will be forgotten. Because it adds no glory to either the city or the university to have them remembered.

I suspect that whoever has the most to invest in a team of lawyers for this fight, that's who will win. It's not about Richard; it's all about the money, and the path of victory usually follows the money.

Sooo, who's got the most money to buy where he lies? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the wrangling goes on for decades in the courts, while Richard's bones languish in a pasteboard box that's set on a shelf in Leicester University. It's no skin off of their noses if he does: it just gives more graduate students and tenure-seeking scholars the opportunity to take him down and have a look for something that will help them build their careers.

~Cynical!Wednesday


--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> I agree.
> That no-one outside of a few members of the Society, the Cathedral Chapter of Leicester and the City Council of Leicester, determined all this, without wider consultation, is entirely the thing which is being held up to account, and deservedly so. This should not have been arranged in 2010. This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening. Everyone should be objecting vehemently on this alone, regardless of any legal challenge: this is totally outside local authority business, I would argue. And the more letters objecting, the better.

"Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
>  
> Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
>  
> Liz
>  
>  
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.
>
>
>

That was my feeling too initially, but so many people here & elsewhere have
pointed out the issues with Leicester, not least of which is that we don't
now think burying people close to where they died a horrible death is the
right thing to do, especially if it wasn't home. Plus we do have evidence
that Richard himself was keen to get this "burial thing" right. So I have
to admit that I do now care that he be buried somewhere appropriate, & that
doesn't seem to be Leicester.

A J

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM, liz williams <
ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get
> the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
>
> Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as
> "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character (plus the
> lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed
> me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
>
> Liz
>
>
>
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
>
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>
> Snip> This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying
> "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is
> what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig
> happening.
>
>
>
>
>

We can only hope that cooler heads bob up, like in the Royal Family, and ask that a former king be buried with dignity and appropriate ceremony.

On Mar 26, 2013, at 12:59 PM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> That was my feeling too initially, but so many people here & elsewhere have
> pointed out the issues with Leicester, not least of which is that we don't
> now think burying people close to where they died a horrible death is the
> right thing to do, especially if it wasn't home. Plus we do have evidence
> that Richard himself was keen to get this "burial thing" right. So I have
> to admit that I do now care that he be buried somewhere appropriate, & that
> doesn't seem to be Leicester.
>
> A J
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM, liz williams <
> ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get
>> the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
>>
>> Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as
>> "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character (plus the
>> lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed
>> me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
>>
>> Liz
>>
>>
>>
>> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
>>
>> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>>
>>
>> Snip> This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying
>> "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is
>> what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig
>> happening.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

I don't think you are cynical Weds. I think you have described Leicester's mindset exactly. I don't think the Society has stepped aside The Ricardian Recorder came out today and Phil Stone is saying that they are still talking and they will report. I am quite angry that John's and Philippa's research has been brushed aside. Without their research there would not have been a dig.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Richard *needs* a judicial review, if only because that's the only way anyone might possibly wrest his remains away from the university. They didn't want him, didn't think they'd find him, but they sure as *^%%#! think they own him now.
>
> His bones mean publishing opportunities, tenure, worldwide fame, profits and attention on whatever the university can create out of the information provided by his bones/life/death, a life-long career in lectures and ongoing books and other publications to current and future generations of scholars in multiple disciplines.
>
> He's a money- and career-making godsend to the city and the university; they already feel they own him, and they're not going to let him go without a fight. The city will fight hard to keep him too: tourism dollars are shining in their eyes and they've already invested in a city museum for him.
>
> What's the saying? Something like, "The avalanche has already started rolling downhill, it's too late for the snowballs to vote." Leicester, et. al. has shoved Phillipa, JAH, the Society and all other "fans" aside. The white tower of academia and the black tower of commerce have claimed him; all others need not apply.
>
> Since the Society has stepped aside, I suspect that when the legal dust settles, the resulting historical tale engraved in stone will be that Leicester University found Richard III's remains, and therefore they own him. Phillipa, JAH, and the Society -- not to mention all the people who love Richard and donated to help find him -- they will be forgotten. Because it adds no glory to either the city or the university to have them remembered.
>
> I suspect that whoever has the most to invest in a team of lawyers for this fight, that's who will win. It's not about Richard; it's all about the money, and the path of victory usually follows the money.
>
> Sooo, who's got the most money to buy where he lies? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the wrangling goes on for decades in the courts, while Richard's bones languish in a pasteboard box that's set on a shelf in Leicester University. It's no skin off of their noses if he does: it just gives more graduate students and tenure-seeking scholars the opportunity to take him down and have a look for something that will help them build their careers.
>
> ~Cynical!Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree.
> > That no-one outside of a few members of the Society, the Cathedral Chapter of Leicester and the City Council of Leicester, determined all this, without wider consultation, is entirely the thing which is being held up to account, and deservedly so. This should not have been arranged in 2010. This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening. Everyone should be objecting vehemently on this alone, regardless of any legal challenge: this is totally outside local authority business, I would argue. And the more letters objecting, the better.
>

Well said, Wednesday, I think you have hit the nail on the head re Leicester's position. I am more hopeful of the JR and any other legal process that the team are planning - I don't think Richard's remains will be on shelves for years to come. Thus far the Society seem content to stick with their "Leicester" preference and seem to be hoping to influence the "tomb design process". But that's not where the public interest lies anymore, I don't think. This challenge brings the entire suitability of the location back to the fore.

Col

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Richard *needs* a judicial review, if only because that's the only way anyone might possibly wrest his remains away from the university. They didn't want him, didn't think they'd find him, but they sure as *^%%#! think they own him now.
>
> His bones mean publishing opportunities, tenure, worldwide fame, profits and attention on whatever the university can create out of the information provided by his bones/life/death, a life-long career in lectures and ongoing books and other publications to current and future generations of scholars in multiple disciplines.
>
> He's a money- and career-making godsend to the city and the university; they already feel they own him, and they're not going to let him go without a fight. The city will fight hard to keep him too: tourism dollars are shining in their eyes and they've already invested in a city museum for him.
>
> What's the saying? Something like, "The avalanche has already started rolling downhill, it's too late for the snowballs to vote." Leicester, et. al. has shoved Phillipa, JAH, the Society and all other "fans" aside. The white tower of academia and the black tower of commerce have claimed him; all others need not apply.
>
> Since the Society has stepped aside, I suspect that when the legal dust settles, the resulting historical tale engraved in stone will be that Leicester University found Richard III's remains, and therefore they own him. Phillipa, JAH, and the Society -- not to mention all the people who love Richard and donated to help find him -- they will be forgotten. Because it adds no glory to either the city or the university to have them remembered.
>
> I suspect that whoever has the most to invest in a team of lawyers for this fight, that's who will win. It's not about Richard; it's all about the money, and the path of victory usually follows the money.
>
> Sooo, who's got the most money to buy where he lies? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the wrangling goes on for decades in the courts, while Richard's bones languish in a pasteboard box that's set on a shelf in Leicester University. It's no skin off of their noses if he does: it just gives more graduate students and tenure-seeking scholars the opportunity to take him down and have a look for something that will help them build their careers.
>
> ~Cynical!Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree.
> > That no-one outside of a few members of the Society, the Cathedral Chapter of Leicester and the City Council of Leicester, determined all this, without wider consultation, is entirely the thing which is being held up to account, and deservedly so. This should not have been arranged in 2010. This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening. Everyone should be objecting vehemently on this alone, regardless of any legal challenge: this is totally outside local authority business, I would argue. And the more letters objecting, the better.
>

I'm not disagreeing but what I'm saying is that if that was the only way to get the dig done, with conditions, then of course it was accepted.



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:42
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 
"Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.

--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
>  
> Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
>  
> Liz
>  
>  
>
> From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.
>
>
>

I can see that it probably was the only way forward..they were in between a rock and a hard place. It stinks really...Eileen

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not disagreeing but what I'm saying is that if that was the only way to get the dig done, with conditions, then of course it was accepted.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:42
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> "Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
> >  
> > Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
> >  
> > Liz
> >  
> >  
> >
> > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
> > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >
> >  
> > Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yes Liz, it would have been a very hard choice. Either to find Richard or not. I have to say like you it was the only choice.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not disagreeing but what I'm saying is that if that was the only way to get the dig done, with conditions, then of course it was accepted.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:42
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> "Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
> >  
> > Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
> >  
> > Liz
> >  
> >  
> >
> > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
> > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >
> >  
> > Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

And I still say the responsibility lies with the person who issued the licence who clearly did not appreciate the enormity of controversy surrounding the burial of a king. They clearly did not take it seriously. I doubt it was ever referred to a supervisor for a decision. There should be a review, on those grounds alone.
 

________________________________
From: ricard1an <maryfriend@...>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 20:33
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 

Yes Liz, it would have been a very hard choice. Either to find Richard or not. I have to say like you it was the only choice.

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not disagreeing but what I'm saying is that if that was the only way to get the dig done, with conditions, then of course it was accepted.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 17:42
> Subject: Re: Judicial Review
>
>  
> "Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.
>
> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@> wrote:
> >
> > No it shouldn't have but on the that basis, if it was the only way to get the dig then of course thety had to go for it.
> >  
> > Personally I don't have an issue with "where" he is buried, so much as "how" and the comments in the design brief about his character  (plus the lack of historical accuracy regarding Bosworth itself) have really pissed me off and I was quite happy with Leicester beforehand.
> >  
> > Liz
> >  
> >  
> >
> > From: colyngbourne <mailto:no_reply%40yahoogroups.com>
> > To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 16:34
> > Subject: Re: Judicial Review
> >
> >  
> > Snip>    This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hmm. So there are people to whom the old Society seems weak and ineffectual in this particular matter; and some of the disaffected ones have now made their claim to be the new, better Society. Who's the most Plantagenet of them all?

There's something strangely familiar about all this.

... let's hope this story has a better ending.

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> "Putting provisos" on the dig being allowed - when essentially "bargaining" for the remains of a King of England - is beyond the remit of any group involved in the dig, I would argue.
>

I agree. Like I said before, the Society - and we - don't own Richard any more than Leicester does. The Society certainly doesn't represent the entire country, so it wouldn't have had the authority to negotiate on a matter of such national importance.

I understand why the Society would want to keep out of this now, but I really hope this Plantagenet Alliance won't be the only 'official-sounding' spokesperson/campaign to get the matter of Richard's reburial re-assessed. I like to think their heart is in the right place, but the whole thing does seem a bit shady and if that's the popular perception, it's not going to help anything.

What I'd really like to see is a simple, unaffiliated webpage: easy to set up on Wordpress.com or some such.

No vested interests, no Societies, no business, no donations, no in-fighting about who's allowed to speak for whom. Nothing business-like or too flashy. No arguing about the finer points of Richard's posthumous reputation. No campaigning for any particular burial place. Just the plain facts of the case, simply presented; a call for a fair and unbiased judicial review, and for the acknowledgement of the national importance of this whole affair that, after all, revolves around the remains of a *king* of England.

Along with a list of appropriate contacts and a suggestion to write to them.

All this information has been written eloquently and comprehensively on this forum (by colyngbourne, and others) and it's a shame it can't be read by non-members. It would be great to have a page of this kind to point non-Ricardian friends to.

From: Jonathan Evans
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Judicial Review


> As for "With due humility and affection, we are and will remain his
> Majesty's representatives and voice", that's a very self-aggrandising
> statement.

And isn't "His Majesty" Henry's invention? Richard was "His Grace".

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> That was my feeling too initially, but so many people here & elsewhere have pointed out the issues with Leicester, not least of which is that we don't now think burying people close to where they died a horrible death is the right thing to do, especially if it wasn't home. Plus we do have evidence that Richard himself was keen to get this "burial thing" right. So I have to admit that I do now care that he be buried somewhere appropriate, & that doesn't seem to be Leicester.
>
> A J

Carol responds:

I just stumbled on an indication, in an excerpt from a biography of Henry VI, of all places, that he wanted (as king) to be buried in Windsor. Apparently, he buried Henry in the second bay of the south choir, opposite Edward IV. The author, Bertram Percy Wolfe, makes what seems to me the reasonable suggestion that Richard may have reserved the first bay for himself.

http://books.google.com/books?id=rZIZomKR1AMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Henry+VI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rytSUZXSF6TniALHh4HACg&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Richard%20III&f=false

Interesting point about Richard wanting to "get this burial thing right." He had been in charge of transferring his father's and Edmund's bodies to a more appropriate resting place, he ordered the chapel and reburial in consecrated ground for the soldiers at Towton, and, of course, he had Henry VI reburied at Windsor.

Like you, I originally had no objections to Leicester, and I still would have none if they had not written that all too revealing architectural brief. Not only do they not have room for an appropriate tomb, they have no understanding of who Richard really was.

I suppose the bay near Edward IV is out of the question now. Were he and Henry VI reburied in the same place after their exhumation?

Carol

Yes if people really could put their differences aside and Richard's interests first (that is for a dignified and appropriate burial) then a challenge to the Law on processes ie the issuing of a routine licence for a King's burial would I would have thought yielded more success than any amount of emotional outbursts. But that's harder than it seems, given the emotion this man has always stirred. 



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 22:21
Subject: Re: Judicial Review

 

What I'd really like to see is a simple, unaffiliated webpage: easy to set up on Wordpress.com or some such.

No vested interests, no Societies, no business, no donations, no in-fighting about who's allowed to speak for whom. Nothing business-like or too flashy. No arguing about the finer points of Richard's posthumous reputation. No campaigning for any particular burial place. Just the plain facts of the case, simply presented; a call for a fair and unbiased judicial review, and for the acknowledgement of the national importance of this whole affair that, after all, revolves around the remains of a *king* of England.

Along with a list of appropriate contacts and a suggestion to write to them.

All this information has been written eloquently and comprehensively on this forum (by colyngbourne, and others) and it's a shame it can't be read by non-members. It would be great to have a page of this kind to point non-Ricardian friends to.

________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: Judicial Review


> Well said, Wednesday, I think you have hit the nail on the head re Leicester's position.

But all that will be equally true of York if they win in this increasingly unedifying battle.  Let's try and keep motivations out of this - Richard will be an economic boon wherever he goes and there's no Local Authority that will be unaware of that or somehow "above it" - and consider as impartially as possible what's most appropriate, historically, archaeologically and nationally.  If a Judicial Review can achieve that, I would very much support there being one.  Even more so if both sides agree to accept the outcome without complaint.


Jonathan



________________________________
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, 26 March 2013, 19:44
Subject: Re: Judicial Review


 
Well said, Wednesday, I think you have hit the nail on the head re Leicester's position. I am more hopeful of the JR and any other legal process that the team are planning - I don't think Richard's remains will be on shelves for years to come. Thus far the Society seem content to stick with their "Leicester" preference and seem to be hoping to influence the "tomb design process". But that's not where the public interest lies anymore, I don't think. This challenge brings the entire suitability of the location back to the fore.

Col

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Richard *needs* a judicial review, if only because that's the only way anyone might possibly wrest his remains away from the university. They didn't want him, didn't think they'd find him, but they sure as *^%%#! think they own him now.
>
> His bones mean publishing opportunities, tenure, worldwide fame, profits and attention on whatever the university can create out of the information provided by his bones/life/death, a life-long career in lectures and ongoing books and other publications to current and future generations of scholars in multiple disciplines.
>
> He's a money- and career-making godsend to the city and the university; they already feel they own him, and they're not going to let him go without a fight. The city will fight hard to keep him too: tourism dollars are shining in their eyes and they've already invested in a city museum for him.
>
> What's the saying? Something like, "The avalanche has already started rolling downhill, it's too late for the snowballs to vote." Leicester, et. al. has shoved Phillipa, JAH, the Society and all other "fans" aside. The white tower of academia and the black tower of commerce have claimed him; all others need not apply.
>
> Since the Society has stepped aside, I suspect that when the legal dust settles, the resulting historical tale engraved in stone will be that Leicester University found Richard III's remains, and therefore they own him. Phillipa, JAH, and the Society -- not to mention all the people who love Richard and donated to help find him -- they will be forgotten. Because it adds no glory to either the city or the university to have them remembered.
>
> I suspect that whoever has the most to invest in a team of lawyers for this fight, that's who will win. It's not about Richard; it's all about the money, and the path of victory usually follows the money.
>
> Sooo, who's got the most money to buy where he lies? Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the wrangling goes on for decades in the courts, while Richard's bones languish in a pasteboard box that's set on a shelf in Leicester University. It's no skin off of their noses if he does: it just gives more graduate students and tenure-seeking scholars the opportunity to take him down and have a look for something that will help them build their careers.
>
> ~Cynical!Wednesday
>
>
> --- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > I agree.
> > That no-one outside of a few members of the Society, the Cathedral Chapter of Leicester and the City Council of Leicester, determined all this, without wider consultation, is entirely the thing which is being held up to account, and deservedly so. This should not have been arranged in 2010. This should not have been arranged by the City Council saying "you can have your dig, so long as we get to keep the remains" - which is what Leicester University have publicly stated was the basis for the dig happening. Everyone should be objecting vehemently on this alone, regardless of any legal challenge: this is totally outside local authority business, I would argue. And the more letters objecting, the better.
>

Claire wrote:

> And isn't "His Majesty" Henry's invention? Richard was "His Grace".
>
Carol responds:

Or "his highness" in most of his proclamations, letters, etc. But you're right, never "his majesty."

I've heard variously that Richard II, Henry VII, and Henry VIII was the first to introduce the style "your majesty," but apparently it wasn't used exclusively until Stuart times. I've also read that Henry VII was addressed by all three titles. Anyone with an authoritative source, please let us know.

Carol

See http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/11077651.Richard_III_fight_goes_to_High_Court/ The statement in this, that the PA want Richard to be buried in York but would be satisfied with a wide-ranging public consultation' seems a little ironic to me. Because if, after the sought-after public consultation, Richard is buried at Leicester anyway, this whole Judicial Review, and all the delays and expense, will have been for nothing. A Pyrrhic defeat, in which the ultimate loser is Richard, who throughout the whole sorry business has been on a shelf, awaiting the final Christian respect that is his right. Sad. Sandra =^..^=

ricard1an,
With all due respect, I have always been interested about Richard III,but I never knew anything about the search until he was found.The same with the earliest petitions.They'd closed by the time I had heard of them.
Kathryn x