David Baldwin's biography of Richard

The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?

Someone should remind them that in 1983, Jeremy Potter wrote in *Good King
Richard* (p 268) --

"Today... all trace of the house of the Greyfriars where he was buried has
been obliterated, his place of interment now a car park."


A J



On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:04 AM, favefauve@... <
favefauve@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
>
>

Is this Baldwin the fella who wrote Stoke Field and RoY?

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> Someone should remind them that in 1983, Jeremy Potter wrote in *Good King
> Richard* (p 268) --
>
> "Today... all trace of the house of the Greyfriars where he was buried has
> been obliterated, his place of interment now a car park."
>
>
> A J
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 1:04 AM, favefauve@... <
> favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> > University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> > "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> > cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

And Phillipa?????

On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>" <favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>> wrote:



The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?

Because they are using the whole find as a means of promoting their own research ranking and expertise. It isn't in their interest to be mentioning independent scholars....

--- On Sat, 13/4/13, favefauve@... <favefauve@...> wrote:

From: favefauve@... <favefauve@...>
Subject: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
To:
Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 7:04
















 









The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".

No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?

Has Phillipa written anything?


--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And Phillipa?????
>
> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>" <favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.

So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
----- Original Message -----
From: favefauve@...
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard



Has Phillipa written anything?

--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:
>
> And Phillipa?????
>
> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>" <favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>> wrote:
>
>
>
> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book, published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page. 

--- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:

From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
To:
Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
















 









She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.



So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did so and predicted that Richard would still be there?

----- Original Message -----

From: favefauve@...

To:

Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM

Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard



Has Phillipa written anything?



--- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

>

> And Phillipa?????

>

> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>" <favefauve@...<mailto:favefauve@...>> wrote:

>

>

>

> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".

> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Because JA-H isn't a retired U o L Lecturer. It's aaaaaaalll about U o L. And this is likely also why they didn't invite JA-H to the media circuses, but did invite Baldwin.

~Weds

--- In , "favefauve@..." <favefauve@...> wrote:
>
> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>

I must admit that I am quite angry about this. JAH has done so much for Ricardian and WOTR research in general and finding Richard research in particular. It ia a travesty of justice that he has not been included in the U of L's media appearences. If it was not for him and Philippa there would be no King in the car park.

--- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@...> wrote:
>
> Because JA-H isn't a retired U o L Lecturer. It's aaaaaaalll about U o L. And this is likely also why they didn't invite JA-H to the media circuses, but did invite Baldwin.
>
> ~Weds
>
> --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> >
> > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >
>

Totally agree......why doesnt it surprise me?...but we know the truth of the matter don't we...Eileen
--- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@...> wrote:
>
> I must admit that I am quite angry about this. JAH has done so much for Ricardian and WOTR research in general and finding Richard research in particular. It ia a travesty of justice that he has not been included in the U of L's media appearences. If it was not for him and Philippa there would be no King in the car park.
>
> --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> >
> > Because JA-H isn't a retired U o L Lecturer. It's aaaaaaalll about U o L. And this is likely also why they didn't invite JA-H to the media circuses, but did invite Baldwin.
> >
> > ~Weds
> >
> > --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
> > >
> >
>

Hello all, I agree that it is disgusting that John has not been given the recognition he deserves, he did most of the work on the DNA before the university and searching for descendants. He also has a great knowledge of churches, friaries etc. At the conference in Leicester held by The Society he was given a life membership of The Society, I was disgusted that he had not been given the same award as Phillipa at the Society AGM Both John and Phillipa knew where Richard was buried as did many of us in The Society. John now seems to have been pushed into the background, disgusting and ungrateful I call it.
Time he was given the recognition he deserves.
I don't know if he reads this forum but if he does well done John and God Bless you.
Loyaulte me Lie
Christine


--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> Totally agree......why doesnt it surprise me?...but we know the truth of the matter don't we...Eileen
> --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> >
> > I must admit that I am quite angry about this. JAH has done so much for Ricardian and WOTR research in general and finding Richard research in particular. It ia a travesty of justice that he has not been included in the U of L's media appearences. If it was not for him and Philippa there would be no King in the car park.
> >
> > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Because JA-H isn't a retired U o L Lecturer. It's aaaaaaalll about U o L. And this is likely also why they didn't invite JA-H to the media circuses, but did invite Baldwin.
> > >
> > > ~Weds
> > >
> > > --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Phillipa and John should be known as the people behind this remarkable discovery for generations to come! But U of L seems to usurping that privilege!
This is ridiculous!

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 14, 2013, at 4:58 AM, "christineholmes651@..." <christineholmes651@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hello all, I agree that it is disgusting that John has not been given the recognition he deserves, he did most of the work on the DNA before the university and searching for descendants. He also has a great knowledge of churches, friaries etc. At the conference in Leicester held by The Society he was given a life membership of The Society, I was disgusted that he had not been given the same award as Phillipa at the Society AGM Both John and Phillipa knew where Richard was buried as did many of us in The Society. John now seems to have been pushed into the background, disgusting and ungrateful I call it.
> Time he was given the recognition he deserves.
> I don't know if he reads this forum but if he does well done John and God Bless you.
> Loyaulte me Lie
> Christine
>
> --- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
> >
> > Totally agree......why doesnt it surprise me?...but we know the truth of the matter don't we...Eileen
> > --- In , "ricard1an" <maryfriend@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I must admit that I am quite angry about this. JAH has done so much for Ricardian and WOTR research in general and finding Richard research in particular. It ia a travesty of justice that he has not been included in the U of L's media appearences. If it was not for him and Philippa there would be no King in the car park.
> > >
> > > --- In , "wednesday_mc" <wednesday.mac@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Because JA-H isn't a retired U o L Lecturer. It's aaaaaaalll about U o L. And this is likely also why they didn't invite JA-H to the media circuses, but did invite Baldwin.
> > > >
> > > > ~Weds
> > > >
> > > > --- In , "favefauve@" <favefauve@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > > > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>

Strange, how Baldwin had allegedly pinpointed RIII's remains years ago yet the U of L dig team is on record (especially film) as repeatedly saying that they never thought they'd find Richard, and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars, when they first started the dig.

In fact, I get the impression that the U of L only did the dig because Ricardians the world over had paid for it to be done.

If the U of L brass had known about Baldwin and his work back in 2012 -- or had known about him and given him some attention -- then they would have, I suspect, been a lot more easily persuaded to let their archaeologists do a dig.


--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book, published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page. 
>
> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
>
>
>
> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: favefauve@...
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
>
>
>
> Has Phillipa written anything?
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > And Phillipa?????
>
> >
>
> > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>" <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
>
> > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker, I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to have finally joined this group.

RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first "pinpointed" Richard --

My thoughts on this are as follows:

-- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say, repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth) on the very first day of digging?

-- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?

-- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.




--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book, published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page. 
>
> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
>
>
>
> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: favefauve@...
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
>
>
>
> Has Phillipa written anything?
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > And Phillipa?????
>
> >
>
> > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>" <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
>
> > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
the project as of 31 Dec 2012

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12


Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
reinstatement" were funded
ý19, 935 by University of Leicester
ý18, 083 by the Richard III Society
ý5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
ý5,000 by Leicester City Council
ý500 by Leicester Adult Schools

And they paid the total for post excavations
ý94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
Greyfriars itself.

So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
had not been able to find a replacement of ý10,000 from the members of the
Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.

A J


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
> I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
> have finally joined this group.
>
> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> "pinpointed" Richard --
>
> My thoughts on this are as follows:
>
> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
> implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
> and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
> on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
> on the very first day of digging?
>
> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
> Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
> hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
> use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
> Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
> to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
>
> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
> they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
> be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
> the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
> Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
> the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
> car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
> is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.ý
> >
> > --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> Richard
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ý
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> >
> >
> >
> > So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: favefauve@...
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Has Phillipa written anything?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > And Phillipa?????
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> >
> > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Very interesting, and absolutely in University speak, "if you cannot convince them, confuse them"! This is probably the most publicity the University has received, worldwide, in its history. But yes, the shabby treatment of individuals and groups is neither candid nor correct. Once a university train leaves the station, facts become relative. We've been had, but cannot prove it, or shame them into making things right.


-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of A J Hibbard
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 7:13 AM
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard

I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of the project as of 31 Dec 2012

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12


Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and reinstatement" were funded £19, 935 by University of Leicester £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
£5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
£5,000 by Leicester City Council
£500 by Leicester Adult Schools

And they paid the total for post excavations
£94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of Greyfriars itself.

So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.

A J


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara
> Baker, I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am
> very happy to have finally joined this group.
>
> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> "pinpointed" Richard --
>
> My thoughts on this are as follows:
>
> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic
> now implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find
> Richard and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less
> hit paydirt on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of
> tarmac and earth) on the very first day of digging?
>
> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take
> John Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's
> worth of hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne
> so he could use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it
> was found -- and Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising
> skills to get the UofL to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
>
> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to
> what they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else
> (namely the RIII
> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing
> to be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to
> dig up the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if
> they thought Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton
> <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that)
> that the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains"
> below the car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I
> know his article is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII
> Facebook page.Â
> >
> > --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography
> > of
> Richard
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> >
> >
> >
> > So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who
> > did
> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: favefauve@...
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography
> > of
> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Has Phillipa written anything?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > And Phillipa?????
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin
> as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> >
> > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

We should also remember the way the university lauded and defended Danny
Williams scenario for Bosworth which was used to map out the original
battlefield site around the battlefield centre back in the mid 1970s.
In spite of it being totally implausible to anyone who had the slightest
knowledge of medieval battle tactics, and in many respects ludicrous
[Tudor was placed at Shenton Station, where Richard's artillery would
have been able to easily blow him to pieces from the top of the hill
where Richard's army had been placed] the University supported him and
his 'theories'.
Well he was Head of their History department then, and the Council had
paid him to map out a site to fit on the piece of land they had bought,
namely Ambion Farm on Ambion Hill.
It's taken more than 40 years, and a lot of hard work by historians and
archaeologists, for them to acknowledge Williams was wrong.
Look after your own is clearly their way!
Paul


On 19/04/2013 13:13, A J Hibbard wrote:
> I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
> oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
> the project as of 31 Dec 2012
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
>
>
> Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
> reinstatement" were funded
> £19, 935 by University of Leicester
> £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
> £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
> £5,000 by Leicester City Council
> £500 by Leicester Adult Schools
>
> And they paid the total for post excavations
> £94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
> University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
> know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
> researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
> funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
> the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
> Greyfriars itself.
>
> So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
> was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
> re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
> From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
> had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
> Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
>> I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
>> have finally joined this group.
>>
>> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
>> "pinpointed" Richard --
>>
>> My thoughts on this are as follows:
>>
>> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
>> implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
>> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
>> and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
>> on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
>> on the very first day of digging?
>>
>> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
>> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
>> Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
>> hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
>> use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
>> Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
>> to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
>>
>> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
>> they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
>> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
>> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
>> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
>> be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
>> the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
>> Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
>>
>> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
>> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
>> the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
>> car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
>> is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
>>> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
>> Richard
>>> To:
>>> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
>> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: favefauve@...
>>>
>>> To:
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Has Phillipa written anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
>> wrote:
>>>> And Phillipa?????
>>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
>> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
>>>> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
>> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
>> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
>>>> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
>> cold-shouldering J A-H?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


--
Richard Liveth Yet!

Do you see how they have now popped up as experts in the Lucy Worsley programme - which I have to say I found rather disappointing? It was as though she hadn't been given much money to make it.



________________________________
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 13:57
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard


 

We should also remember the way the university lauded and defended Danny
Williams scenario for Bosworth which was used to map out the original
battlefield site around the battlefield centre back in the mid 1970s.
In spite of it being totally implausible to anyone who had the slightest
knowledge of medieval battle tactics, and in many respects ludicrous
[Tudor was placed at Shenton Station, where Richard's artillery would
have been able to easily blow him to pieces from the top of the hill
where Richard's army had been placed] the University supported him and
his 'theories'.
Well he was Head of their History department then, and the Council had
paid him to map out a site to fit on the piece of land they had bought,
namely Ambion Farm on Ambion Hill.
It's taken more than 40 years, and a lot of hard work by historians and
archaeologists, for them to acknowledge Williams was wrong.
Look after your own is clearly their way!
Paul

On 19/04/2013 13:13, A J Hibbard wrote:
> I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
> oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
> the project as of 31 Dec 2012
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
>
>
> Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
> reinstatement" were funded
> £19, 935 by University of Leicester
> £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
> £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
> £5,000 by Leicester City Council
> £500 by Leicester Adult Schools
>
> And they paid the total for post excavations
> £94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
> University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
> know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
> researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
> funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
> the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
> Greyfriars itself.
>
> So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
> was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
> re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
> From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
> had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
> Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <mailto:khafara%40aol.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
>> I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
>> have finally joined this group.
>>
>> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
>> "pinpointed" Richard --
>>
>> My thoughts on this are as follows:
>>
>> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
>> implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
>> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
>> and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
>> on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
>> on the very first day of digging?
>>
>> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
>> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
>> Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
>> hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
>> use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
>> Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
>> to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
>>
>> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
>> they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
>> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
>> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
>> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
>> be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
>> the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
>> Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
>>
>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
>> wrote:
>>> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
>> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
>> the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
>> car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
>> is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
>>> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
>> Richard
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Â
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
>> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: favefauve@...
>>>
>>> To: mailto:%40yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> Has Phillipa written anything?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, Pamela Bain <pbain@>
>> wrote:
>>>> And Phillipa?????
>>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
>> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
>>>> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
>> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
>> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
>>>> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
>> cold-shouldering J A-H?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Richard Liveth Yet!

From: maroonnavywhite
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 4:10 AM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
Richard


> I suspect they would have jumped at the chance to dig them up a lot
> earlier than they did, and without needing to be prodded -- the idea that
> they would have passed up the chance to dig up the biggest tourist
> attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought Baldwin truly had
> pinpointed it, is inconceivable.

I guess it's possible that the car-park had become available for excavation
in 2012 in a way in which it had not been available before - maybe the
council had opened up a multi-storey carpark for its staff nearby or
similar - but if so I've not seen any mention of it. And you would think
that if they'd paid attention to Baldwin there would at least have been some
earlier discussion of a "We would like to dig there and look for Richard but
the council feels this would cause too much disruption to their staff"
nature, and that this would have been reported.

Did Philippa and J A-H redo the work from scratch and come up with the same
conclusion as Baldwin, or did they used Baldwin as a starting point and then
check his facts, I wonder? [That is, did the uni's failure to act on
Baldwin result in a lot of unneccessary duplication of effort?]

Also, the dig wouldn't have happened if in the early stages, money hadn't been sourced by PL and JAH from the Society Chair and several private individuals to fund the ground-radar tests, which convinced the University of the location (they had that year published "Visions of Ancient Leicester" containing a reconstruction of the Greyfriars site with the church located incorrectly on the south side of the site). An archaeological Desk-Based Assessment was also required and this was paid for by the Society.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
> oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
> the project as of 31 Dec 2012
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
>
>
> Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
> reinstatement" were funded
> £19, 935 by University of Leicester
> £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
> £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
> £5,000 by Leicester City Council
> £500 by Leicester Adult Schools
>
> And they paid the total for post excavations
> £94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
> University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
> know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
> researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
> funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
> the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
> Greyfriars itself.
>
> So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
> was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
> re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
> From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
> had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
> Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
> > I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
> > have finally joined this group.
> >
> > RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> > "pinpointed" Richard --
> >
> > My thoughts on this are as follows:
> >
> > -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
> > implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> > repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
> > and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
> > on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
> > on the very first day of digging?
> >
> > -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> > UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
> > Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
> > hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
> > use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
> > Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
> > to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
> >
> > -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
> > they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
> > Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> > pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> > chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
> > be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
> > the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
> > Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> > published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
> > the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
> > car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
> > is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> > Richard
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
> > so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: favefauve@
> > >
> > > To:
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Has Phillipa written anything?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > And Phillipa?????
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> > <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> > University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> > "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > >
> > > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> > cold-shouldering J A-H?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It seems clear that they didn't take him seriously at the time - and nor did he care enough to push anything forward. It's only in retropsect that the University has added him to their rota of honour in order to essentially claim all the credit.....

--- On Fri, 19/4/13, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:


From: maroonnavywhite <khafara@...>
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
To:
Date: Friday, 19 April, 2013, 4:53



 



Strange, how Baldwin had allegedly pinpointed RIII's remains years ago yet the U of L dig team is on record (especially film) as repeatedly saying that they never thought they'd find Richard, and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars, when they first started the dig.

In fact, I get the impression that the U of L only did the dig because Ricardians the world over had paid for it to be done.

If the U of L brass had known about Baldwin and his work back in 2012 -- or had known about him and given him some attention -- then they would have, I suspect, been a lot more easily persuaded to let their archaeologists do a dig.

--- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:
>
> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book, published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page. 
>
> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
> To:
> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
>
>
>
> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: favefauve@...
>
> To:
>
> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
>
> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard
>
>
>
> Has Phillipa written anything?
>
>
>
> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > And Phillipa?????
>
> >
>
> > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>" <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
>
> > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is cold-shouldering J A-H?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Its too bad of them...who was Danny Williams by the way...yet another so called historian...Doh...Eileen

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale <paul.bale@...> wrote:
>
> We should also remember the way the university lauded and defended Danny
> Williams scenario for Bosworth which was used to map out the original
> battlefield site around the battlefield centre back in the mid 1970s.
> In spite of it being totally implausible to anyone who had the slightest
> knowledge of medieval battle tactics, and in many respects ludicrous
> [Tudor was placed at Shenton Station, where Richard's artillery would
> have been able to easily blow him to pieces from the top of the hill
> where Richard's army had been placed] the University supported him and
> his 'theories'.
> Well he was Head of their History department then, and the Council had
> paid him to map out a site to fit on the piece of land they had bought,
> namely Ambion Farm on Ambion Hill.
> It's taken more than 40 years, and a lot of hard work by historians and
> archaeologists, for them to acknowledge Williams was wrong.
> Look after your own is clearly their way!
> Paul
>
>
> On 19/04/2013 13:13, A J Hibbard wrote:
> > I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
> > oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
> > the project as of 31 Dec 2012
> >
> > http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
> >
> >
> > Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
> > reinstatement" were funded
> > £19, 935 by University of Leicester
> > £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
> > £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
> > £5,000 by Leicester City Council
> > £500 by Leicester Adult Schools
> >
> > And they paid the total for post excavations
> > £94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
> > University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
> > know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
> > researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
> > funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
> > the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
> > Greyfriars itself.
> >
> > So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
> > was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
> > re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
> > From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
> > had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
> > Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
> >> I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
> >> have finally joined this group.
> >>
> >> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> >> "pinpointed" Richard --
> >>
> >> My thoughts on this are as follows:
> >>
> >> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
> >> implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> >> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
> >> and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
> >> on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
> >> on the very first day of digging?
> >>
> >> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> >> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
> >> Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
> >> hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
> >> use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
> >> Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
> >> to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
> >>
> >> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
> >> they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
> >> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> >> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> >> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
> >> be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
> >> the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
> >> Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
> >>
> >> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> >> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
> >> the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
> >> car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
> >> is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
> >>> --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> >>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> >> Richard
> >>> To:
> >>> Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Â
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
> >> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>
> >>> From: favefauve@
> >>>
> >>> To:
> >>>
> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> >> Richard
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Has Phillipa written anything?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> And Phillipa?????
> >>>> On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> >> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> >>>> The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> >> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> >> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> >>>> No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> >> cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Richard Liveth Yet!
>

I'm assuming "reinstatement" means returning the car park to a car park.
 
I
 
 


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 13:13
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard


I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
oh-so-many ways.  However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
the project as of 31 Dec 2012

http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12


Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
reinstatement" were funded
£19, 935 by University of Leicester
£18, 083 by the Richard III Society
  £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
  £5,000 by Leicester City Council
      £500 by Leicester Adult Schools

And they paid the total  for post excavations
£94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
Greyfriars itself.

So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
was 80.0%.  For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.

A J


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
> I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
> have finally joined this group.
>
> RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> "pinpointed" Richard --
>
> My thoughts on this are as follows:
>
> -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
> implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
> and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
> on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
> on the very first day of digging?
>
> -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
> Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
> hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
> use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
> Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
> to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
>
> -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
> they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
> Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
> be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
> the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
> Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
>
> --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
> the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
> car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
> is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
> >
> > --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...> wrote:
> >
> > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@...>
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> Richard
> > To:
> > Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> >
> >
> >
> > So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
> so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: favefauve@...
> >
> > To:
> >
> > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> >
> > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> > Has Phillipa written anything?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > And Phillipa?????
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> >
> > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> cold-shouldering J A-H?
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

But Baldwin wasn't the first person to come up with it anyway - someone said on here the other day.  Was it Jeremy Potter who first said Richard was probably there and so did Baldwin use Jeremy as a starting point or work it out for himself?


________________________________
From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 11:38
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard

 
Did Philippa and J A-H redo the work from scratch and come up with the same
conclusion as Baldwin, or did they used Baldwin as a starting point and then
check his facts, I wonder? [That is, did the uni's failure to act on
Baldwin result in a lot of unneccessary duplication of effort?]

--- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming "reinstatement" means returning the car park to a car park.
>  

To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark... together they'll start a whole new dynasty of mega car parks that will ultimately dismantle Leicester Cathedral and turn it into a car park as well.

Brilliant, Pansy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sandra

From: pansydobersby
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:08 PM
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard


To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark... together they'll start a whole new dynasty of mega car parks that will ultimately dismantle Leicester Cathedral and turn it into a car park as well.

Pansy, I love you! And just think what marvelous things can be dug up, some 500 years from now....teeth and rotted veggies!

________________________________
From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of pansydobersby
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 3:08 PM
To:
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard



--- In <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming "reinstatement" means returning the car park to a car park.
>

To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark... together they'll start a whole new dynasty of mega car parks that will ultimately dismantle Leicester Cathedral and turn it into a car park as well.

Pansy, you are very naughty ....



________________________________
From: pansydobersby <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Friday, 19 April 2013, 21:08
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard

 
--- In mailto:%40yahoogroups.com, liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
>
> I'm assuming "reinstatement" means returning the car park to a car park.
>  

To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark... together they'll start a whole new dynasty of mega car parks that will ultimately dismantle Leicester Cathedral and turn it into a car park as well.

From: pansydobersby
To:
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 9:08 PM
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
Richard


> To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus
> Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco
> carpark...

If it's for Tesco, shouldn't it be Titulus Vegius?

Exactly.

Either the blokes what wrote "Visions" didn't listen to Baldwin, or Baldwin didn't exactly "pinpoint" RIII's location.





-----Original Message-----
From: colyngbourne <[email protected]>
To: <>
Sent: Fri, Apr 19, 2013 9:04 am
Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of Richard


Also, the dig wouldn't have happened if in the early stages, money hadn't been
sourced by PL and JAH from the Society Chair and several private individuals to
fund the ground-radar tests, which convinced the University of the location
(they had that year published "Visions of Ancient Leicester" containing a
reconstruction of the Greyfriars site with the church located incorrectly on the
south side of the site). An archaeological Desk-Based Assessment was also
required and this was paid for by the Society.

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
wrote:
>
> I too feel that the University of Leicester is behaving shabbily in
> oh-so-many ways. However, they have published an accounting of the cost of
> the project as of 31 Dec 2012
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
>
>
> Is this is an accurate accounting, the cost of the "excavation and
> reinstatement" were funded
> £19, 935 by University of Leicester
> £18, 083 by the Richard III Society
> £5,000 by Leicester Shire Promotions
> £5,000 by Leicester City Council
> £500 by Leicester Adult Schools
>
> And they paid the total for post excavations
> £94,115 - although I would be very curious to know where within the
> University's budgets that money came from - if it's like the University I
> know best, at least some of that will have come from grants to various
> researchers from a variety of sources - potentially some of it public
> funding, & they don't actually spell out how much was spent on Richard vs
> the follow-up to the part they anticipated paying off, the excavation of
> Greyfriars itself.
>
> So I feel it's misleading to claim that their % contribution to the project
> was 80.0%. For the excavation & "reinstatement" (does that mean
> re-interment?) they paid 41% while the RIII Society paid almost as much.
> From what I understand, the dig wouldn't have happened if Philippa Langley
> had not been able to find a replacement of £10,000 from the members of the
> Society committed when a donor backed out at the last minute.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:10 PM, maroonnavywhite <khafara@...> wrote:
>
> > **
> >
> >
> > Hello, everyone! My very first comment in this forum. I'm Tamara Baker,
> > I'm from Minnesota (where it is currently snowing), and I am very happy to
> > have finally joined this group.
> >
> > RE: Snubbing JAH under the pretext that UofLeic's Baldwin first
> > "pinpointed" Richard --
> >
> > My thoughts on this are as follows:
> >
> > -- If Baldwin had such a large role in finding RIII, as the Uof Leic now
> > implies, then why did the U of Leicester's own archaeologists say,
> > repeatedly and for the cameras, that they didn't think they'd find Richard
> > and they weren't even sure they'd find Greyfriars -- much less hit paydirt
> > on the very first trench (almost the very first scoop of tarmac and earth)
> > on the very first day of digging?
> >
> > -- If Baldwin had decades ago "pinpointed" RIII, then why didn't the
> > UofLeic act on his pinpointing back when he'd done so? Why did it take John
> > Ashdown-Hill's sleuthing -- which extended to over a decade's worth of
> > hunting down the living descendants of Richard's sister Anne so he could
> > use their mitochrondrial DNA to ID the skeleton when it was found -- and
> > Phillipa Langley's energy and publicity/fundraising skills to get the UofL
> > to go on what they clearly thought was a fruitless exercise?
> >
> > -- It seems to me as if the only reason the UofL brass consented to what
> > they thought was a pointless dig was because somebody else (namely the RIII
> > Society) was footing the bill. If they really thought that Baldwin had
> > pinpointed Richard's remains, I suspect they would have jumped at the
> > chance to dig them up a lot earlier than they did, and without needing to
> > be prodded -- the idea that they would have passed up the chance to dig up
> > the biggest tourist attraction Leicester would ever have, if they thought
> > Baldwin truly had pinpointed it, is inconceivable.
> >
> > --- In , Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Baldwin did write in 2012 or earlier (the first edition of his book,
> > published 2012, but presumably written in the years preceding that) that
> > the likelihood was that the grave "remained and still remains" below the
> > car park. Whether he'd said so earlier I am not sure - I know his article
> > is on the web as someone posted a link on the RIII Facebook page.Â
> > >
> > > --- On Sat, 13/4/13, Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Stephen Lark <stephenmlark@>
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> > Richard
> > > To:
> > > Date: Saturday, 13 April, 2013, 16:18
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Â
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > She and MKJ are working on a book together and it is due in October.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So Potter mentioned the car park in 1983 and Baldwin in 1986 but who did
> > so and predicted that Richard would still be there?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: favefauve@
> > >
> > > To:
> > >
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 3:48 PM
> > >
> > > Subject: Re: David Baldwin's biography of
> > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Has Phillipa written anything?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In , Pamela Bain <pbain@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > And Phillipa?????
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > On Apr 13, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>"
> > <favefauve@<mailto:favefauve@>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The U of Leicester is selling the updated edition "detailing the
> > University of Leicester's exciting discovery" and describing Baldwin as
> > "retired U of L lecturer" and the man "who pin-pointed the burial site".
> > >
> > > > No disrespect to Baldwin but is this why the University is
> > cold-shouldering J A-H?
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>




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

Yahoo! Groups Links

Ah! Sounds perfect! Lol.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:08 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:

> --- In , liz williams <ferrymansdaughter@...> wrote:
> >
> > I'm assuming "reinstatement" means returning the car park to a car park.
> >
>
> To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark... together they'll start a whole new dynasty of mega car parks that will ultimately dismantle Leicester Cathedral and turn it into a car park as well.
>
>

With Waitrose yelling in the background "It shoudda been me"....


> On Apr 19, 2013, at 4:08 PM, pansydobersby <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> >
> > To be fair, it might also mean they're repealing the Titulus Reservedparkingspottius so the car park can marry the nearest Tesco carpark...
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Claire wrote:

> [snip]
> Did Philippa and J A-H redo the work from scratch and come up with the same
> conclusion as Baldwin, or did they used Baldwin as a starting point and then
> check his facts, I wonder? [That is, did the uni's failure to act on
> Baldwin result in a lot of unneccessary duplication of effort?]
>
Carol responds:

Probably, all of them used Rous as a starting point and arrived independently at the conclusion that Richard's remains must still (at that time) be where they were buried (and that John Speede had looked in the wrong place and consequently jumped to a wrong conclusion involving the River Soar).

Carol