Email Message I got from Society Press Officer re whats happening i

Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not marked private and confidential so here it is.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
Tue, 17:04

FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
From C HOLMES
To Richard Van Allen
From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>

To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester

Hello Christine,
Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep him in Leicester.
Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated, now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress within the church.
As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the membership will be informed.

Best wishes

Richard

Hi, Christine -

Thanks for posting this. It seems I re-joined at just the right time,
because I have been getting very frustrated at the lack of news about the
situation for some time now. Unfortunately Mr. Van Allen's email doesn't do
much to assuage my restlessness, but at least it gives us some fairly
concrete information on the status quo - and it confirms some of my worst
suspicions.



I've been quite frustrated wishing there was more I could do somewhere,
somehow to move things along in a positive way. That is, I voted in the
online poll (yes, Richard should have a tomb!), and I donated to the fund to
construct a tomb, and I left sympathetic comments on the Lost in Castles
website interview with JAH (I think it's *shocking* that the University
should be so parsimonious in sharing information and credit about the find -
particularly as regards JAH!! The University may hold the license to
determine where Richard will be reinterred, but they don't *own* Richard,
and I think their grasping at this amazing opportunity *diminishes* their
reputation in the long run. At least it certainly should in the academic
community.



So, grumble grumble, I don't see any solution to the situation forthcoming,
but I guess the Society and individuals involved have been acting
responsibly. I hope they continue the efforts to get Richard's story out,
and I also hope that the "discussions" regarding the tomb design bear fruit
in the end, so that Richard will have the lasting memorial that he deserves!




BTW, should the end result be a slab rather than a tomb, I would certainly
support a cenotaph elsewhere, and much of my attention would certainly be
cast in that direction. Although I would certainly prefer Richard's bones to
be interred in the tomb that he merits and that will be worthy of the
attention of the people that it will attract.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne









~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of
christineholmes651@...
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:44 AM
To:
Subject: Email Message I got from Society Press
Officer re whats happening in Leicester





Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from Richard
Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what was
happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
marked private and confidential so here it is.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
Tue, 17:04

FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
From C HOLMES
To Richard Van Allen
From: Richard Van Allen <rva@... <mailto:rva%40imagecomm.co.uk>
>

To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...
<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com> >
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester

Hello Christine,
Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that both
yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of the
re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments from
a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to realise
is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped finance
the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will be
re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
him in Leicester.
Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this project
may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps just
below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that the Dean
of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated, now being
in the public view, and that this might effect his progress within the
church.
As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the Dean
and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the Dean.
Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the membership
will be informed.

Best wishes

Richard

I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever portion
ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according to a
slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of the
GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University, whereas
members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and in as
many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
nutters, will understand that money talks.

Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
related to the dig



We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the public,
albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount because
of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
University to be beholden to its funders.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
christineholmes651@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what
> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
> marked private and confidential so here it is.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> Tue, 17:04
>
> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> From C HOLMES
> To Richard Van Allen
> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
>
> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>
> Hello Christine,
> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of
> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to
> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped
> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will
> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
> him in Leicester.
> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps
> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that
> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated,
> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
> within the church.
> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the
> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
> membership will be informed.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard
>
>
>

For some reason that last message was sent automagically by gmail. Please
ignore the bottom paragraph which I intended to delete, & here is the link
to the University's statement of accounting

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

I think a more detailed accounting should be called for

(1) exactly what was spent on the Society's agenda (the excavation and
study of Richard's remains) vs the University's agenda (exploration and
further work on Greyfriars - not questioning its usefulness, but we should
know)

(2) where did the University's pot of money come from that they allocated
to the dig.


A J




On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
> University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever portion
> ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
> have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
> Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
> particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
> University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
> excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
> was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according to a
> slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of the
> GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University, whereas
> members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
> the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and in as
> many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
> nutters, will understand that money talks.
>
> Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
> related to the dig
>
>
>
> We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the public,
> albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
> about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
> Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount because
> of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
> economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
> public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
> University to be beholden to its funders.
>
> A J
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
>> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what
>> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
>> marked private and confidential so here it is.
>> Christine
>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>
>> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
>> Tue, 17:04
>>
>> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
>> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>> From C HOLMES
>> To Richard Van Allen
>> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
>>
>> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
>> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
>> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>>
>> Hello Christine,
>> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
>> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of
>> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
>> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
>> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
>> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to
>> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped
>> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will
>> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
>> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
>> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
>> him in Leicester.
>> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
>> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
>> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
>> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
>> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
>> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
>> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
>> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps
>> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that
>> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated,
>> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
>> within the church.
>> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
>> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the
>> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
>> membership will be informed.
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>
>

I agree wholly: the accounting should be more explicit - from what has appeared so far in articles etc, it seems the initial ground-radar studies were paid for by the Society and a number of individuals within the Society; also the Desk-Based Assessment was paid for by the Society or JL/JAH, I understand, and also the DNA testing - £250? - was paid for by JL/JAH, I think. And the Society's last-minute fundraising last July provided the £10,000 that was needed for the University Project to be viable and to go ahead.

Re the letter from the Press Officer, I count it as a very disturbing letter, tbh [thank you to Christine for sharing it with us]. The implications about the University's status-seeking - also possibly including the Dean-Elect of the Cathedral in this - let alone the phrase "seeming to be being obtuse" with reference to the Dean-Elect, I would suggest are extremely unwise elements to be voiced in a letter from the Society's official Press Officer to a member of the public. Relations with the cathedral are shown to be currently cordial, but the opinions voiced in this letter are, imo, rather concerning in themselves - esp. as coming 'officially' from the heart of the Society.

Col

--- In , A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> For some reason that last message was sent automagically by gmail. Please
> ignore the bottom paragraph which I intended to delete, & here is the link
> to the University's statement of accounting
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
> .
>
> I think a more detailed accounting should be called for
>
> (1) exactly what was spent on the Society's agenda (the excavation and
> study of Richard's remains) vs the University's agenda (exploration and
> further work on Greyfriars - not questioning its usefulness, but we should
> know)
>
> (2) where did the University's pot of money come from that they allocated
> to the dig.
>
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
> > University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever portion
> > ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
> > have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
> > Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
> > particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
> > University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
> > excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
> > was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according to a
> > slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of the
> > GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University, whereas
> > members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
> > the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and in as
> > many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
> > nutters, will understand that money talks.
> >
> > Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
> > related to the dig
> >
> >
> >
> > We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the public,
> > albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
> > about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
> > Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount because
> > of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
> > economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
> > public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
> > University to be beholden to its funders.
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
> > christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >
> >> **
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
> >> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what
> >> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
> >> marked private and confidential so here it is.
> >> Christine
> >> Loyaulte me Lie
> >>
> >> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> >> Tue, 17:04
> >>
> >> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> >> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >> From C HOLMES
> >> To Richard Van Allen
> >> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
> >>
> >> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
> >> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> >> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >>
> >> Hello Christine,
> >> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
> >> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of
> >> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
> >> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> >> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
> >> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to
> >> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped
> >> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will
> >> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
> >> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
> >> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
> >> him in Leicester.
> >> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> >> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
> >> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
> >> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
> >> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
> >> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
> >> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
> >> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps
> >> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that
> >> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated,
> >> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
> >> within the church.
> >> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
> >> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the
> >> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
> >> membership will be informed.
> >>
> >> Best wishes
> >>
> >> Richard
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

It just seems to me totally bizarre that a University would have the say so as to where the remains of king should go. This is a total one-off and normal legislation should not apply in these circumstances. Its all very unfortunate to say the least...eileen

--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Christine -
>
> Thanks for posting this. It seems I re-joined at just the right time,
> because I have been getting very frustrated at the lack of news about the
> situation for some time now. Unfortunately Mr. Van Allen's email doesn't do
> much to assuage my restlessness, but at least it gives us some fairly
> concrete information on the status quo - and it confirms some of my worst
> suspicions.
>
>
>
> I've been quite frustrated wishing there was more I could do somewhere,
> somehow to move things along in a positive way. That is, I voted in the
> online poll (yes, Richard should have a tomb!), and I donated to the fund to
> construct a tomb, and I left sympathetic comments on the Lost in Castles
> website interview with JAH (I think it's *shocking* that the University
> should be so parsimonious in sharing information and credit about the find -
> particularly as regards JAH!! The University may hold the license to
> determine where Richard will be reinterred, but they don't *own* Richard,
> and I think their grasping at this amazing opportunity *diminishes* their
> reputation in the long run. At least it certainly should in the academic
> community.
>
>
>
> So, grumble grumble, I don't see any solution to the situation forthcoming,
> but I guess the Society and individuals involved have been acting
> responsibly. I hope they continue the efforts to get Richard's story out,
> and I also hope that the "discussions" regarding the tomb design bear fruit
> in the end, so that Richard will have the lasting memorial that he deserves!
>
>
>
>
> BTW, should the end result be a slab rather than a tomb, I would certainly
> support a cenotaph elsewhere, and much of my attention would certainly be
> cast in that direction. Although I would certainly prefer Richard's bones to
> be interred in the tomb that he merits and that will be worthy of the
> attention of the people that it will attract.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> christineholmes651@...
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: Email Message I got from Society Press
> Officer re whats happening in Leicester
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from Richard
> Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what was
> happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
> marked private and confidential so here it is.
> Christine
> Loyaulte me Lie
>
> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> Tue, 17:04
>
> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> From C HOLMES
> To Richard Van Allen
> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@... <mailto:rva%40imagecomm.co.uk>
> >
>
> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...
> <mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com> >
> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>
> Hello Christine,
> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that both
> yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of the
> re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments from
> a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to realise
> is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped finance
> the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will be
> re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
> him in Leicester.
> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this project
> may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps just
> below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that the Dean
> of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated, now being
> in the public view, and that this might effect his progress within the
> church.
> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the Dean
> and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the Dean.
> Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the membership
> will be informed.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Very interesting, and quite frank. I do hope the hue and cry from the public will be taken into account, not as a bunch of screaming groupies, but as genuine individuals who wish to see King Richard III, is interred with proper respect.

On Apr 28, 2013, at 5:43 AM, "christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>" <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651@...>> wrote:



Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not marked private and confidential so here it is.
Christine
Loyaulte me Lie

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
Tue, 17:04

FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
From C HOLMES
To Richard Van Allen
From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...<mailto:rva%40imagecomm.co.uk>>

To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...<mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com>>
Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester

Hello Christine,
Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep him in Leicester.
Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated, now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress within the church.
As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the membership will be informed.

Best wishes

Richard

This is partly why the Collateral Descendants's legal challenge should be supported: some people might not agree with the entirety of their challenge but something - someone - needs to challenge why and how a University Dept. should have "legal right" to the remains of a king, once discovered. It is an unprecedented case, and such, should be brought out of the hands of a civic university, who on the face of it, are seeking to maximise their part in the discovery to the clear "whitewashing" from the picture of those who played the most major roles - PL and JAH - and the Society's support and funding.

People in the future will look at how this was handled and be staggered that it could be decided like this, without national consultation. Amongst other reasons, I am supporting the legal challenge so that something fitting to this king can be provided in a place which is more fitting to him; and also, to challenge the authority of those who somehow have an exhumation licence for "unknown persons" with which they then wish to re-inter the last of the Plantagenets.

Col

--- In , "EileenB" <cherryripe.eileenb@...> wrote:
>
> It just seems to me totally bizarre that a University would have the say so as to where the remains of king should go. This is a total one-off and normal legislation should not apply in these circumstances. Its all very unfortunate to say the least...eileen
>
> --- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Christine -
> >
> > Thanks for posting this. It seems I re-joined at just the right time,
> > because I have been getting very frustrated at the lack of news about the
> > situation for some time now. Unfortunately Mr. Van Allen's email doesn't do
> > much to assuage my restlessness, but at least it gives us some fairly
> > concrete information on the status quo - and it confirms some of my worst
> > suspicions.
> >
> >
> >
> > I've been quite frustrated wishing there was more I could do somewhere,
> > somehow to move things along in a positive way. That is, I voted in the
> > online poll (yes, Richard should have a tomb!), and I donated to the fund to
> > construct a tomb, and I left sympathetic comments on the Lost in Castles
> > website interview with JAH (I think it's *shocking* that the University
> > should be so parsimonious in sharing information and credit about the find -
> > particularly as regards JAH!! The University may hold the license to
> > determine where Richard will be reinterred, but they don't *own* Richard,
> > and I think their grasping at this amazing opportunity *diminishes* their
> > reputation in the long run. At least it certainly should in the academic
> > community.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, grumble grumble, I don't see any solution to the situation forthcoming,
> > but I guess the Society and individuals involved have been acting
> > responsibly. I hope they continue the efforts to get Richard's story out,
> > and I also hope that the "discussions" regarding the tomb design bear fruit
> > in the end, so that Richard will have the lasting memorial that he deserves!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > BTW, should the end result be a slab rather than a tomb, I would certainly
> > support a cenotaph elsewhere, and much of my attention would certainly be
> > cast in that direction. Although I would certainly prefer Richard's bones to
> > be interred in the tomb that he merits and that will be worthy of the
> > attention of the people that it will attract.
> >
> >
> >
> > Loyaulte me lie,
> >
> >
> >
> > Johanne
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Johanne L. Tournier
> >
> >
> >
> > Email - jltournier60@
> >
> > or jltournier@
> >
> >
> >
> > "With God, all things are possible."
> >
> > - Jesus of Nazareth
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> >
> >
> > From:
> > [mailto:] On Behalf Of
> > christineholmes651@
> > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 7:44 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: Email Message I got from Society Press
> > Officer re whats happening in Leicester
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from Richard
> > Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what was
> > happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
> > marked private and confidential so here it is.
> > Christine
> > Loyaulte me Lie
> >
> > Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> > Tue, 17:04
> >
> > FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> > Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> > From C HOLMES
> > To Richard Van Allen
> > From: Richard Van Allen <rva@ <mailto:rva%40imagecomm.co.uk>
> > >
> >
> > To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@
> > <mailto:christineholmes651%40btinternet.com> >
> > Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> > Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >
> > Hello Christine,
> > Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that both
> > yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of the
> > re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
> > limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> > ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments from
> > a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to realise
> > is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped finance
> > the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will be
> > re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
> > Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
> > have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
> > him in Leicester.
> > Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> > Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
> > Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
> > tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
> > would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
> > say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
> > I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this project
> > may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps just
> > below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that the Dean
> > of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated, now being
> > in the public view, and that this might effect his progress within the
> > church.
> > As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the Dean
> > and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the Dean.
> > Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the membership
> > will be informed.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society
Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester


> Re the letter from the Press Officer, I count it as a very disturbing
> letter, tbh [thank you to Christine for sharing it with us]. The
> implications about the University's status-seeking - also possibly
> including the Dean-Elect of the Cathedral in this - let alone the phrase
> "seeming to be being obtuse" with reference to the Dean-Elect, I would
> suggest are extremely unwise elements to be voiced in a letter from the
> Society's official Press Officer to a member of the public. Relations with
> the cathedral are shown to be currently cordial, but the opinions voiced
> in this letter are, imo, rather concerning in themselves - esp. as coming
> 'officially' from the heart of the Society.

And I have to say that both the acting dean and the dean elect sounded more
positive in the replies I got from them (see post "Replies from Leicester"
on April 17th) than this letter would lead one to suppose. The acting dean
said "We hope that the space created in which the King will lie will
engender a sense of awe and wonder, using lighting, artefacts, textiles and
more, which will tell his story with dignity and inspire visitors of all
ages and backgrounds." and the incoming dean "I am very aware of the
extraordinary responsibility we have to lay the King finally to rest with
due honour and dignity. We will not come to quick design or decision but are
seeking the very best advice. We will wish to mark his place of burial with
the highest quality craftsmanship and in a way which not only will read well
in our generations but for centuries to come."

I had a reply from the Uni a few days ago which said "I have forwarded your
letter to my colleague Professor Gordon Campbell who is a member of the
liturgical group for the reburial of Richard III, and will be able to feed
your thoughts into the committree along with those of other interested
parties and members of the public."

Whilst not terribly inspiring this suggests that it may be useful to keep
writing and that they *may* take public desire for a proper tomb into
account.

This is probably endemic to all governmental and educational bodies, once they some money it becomes "purposes" for whatever they wish, and have a really difficult time actually nailing money spent into the proper accounting which businesses must do.



On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:

> For some reason that last message was sent automagically by gmail. Please
> ignore the bottom paragraph which I intended to delete, & here is the link
> to the University's statement of accounting
>
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
> .
>
> I think a more detailed accounting should be called for
>
> (1) exactly what was spent on the Society's agenda (the excavation and
> study of Richard's remains) vs the University's agenda (exploration and
> further work on Greyfriars - not questioning its usefulness, but we should
> know)
>
> (2) where did the University's pot of money come from that they allocated
> to the dig.
>
>
> A J
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
>> I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
>> University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever portion
>> ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
>> have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
>> Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
>> particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
>> University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
>> excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
>> was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according to a
>> slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of the
>> GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University, whereas
>> members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
>> the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and in as
>> many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
>> nutters, will understand that money talks.
>>
>> Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
>> related to the dig
>>
>>
>>
>> We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the public,
>> albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
>> about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
>> Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount because
>> of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
>> economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
>> public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
>> University to be beholden to its funders.
>>
>> A J
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
>> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
>>> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re what
>>> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It was not
>>> marked private and confidential so here it is.
>>> Christine
>>> Loyaulte me Lie
>>>
>>> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
>>> Tue, 17:04
>>>
>>> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
>>> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>>> From C HOLMES
>>> To Richard Van Allen
>>> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
>>>
>>> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
>>> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
>>> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
>>>
>>> Hello Christine,
>>> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
>>> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the subject of
>>> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter is in
>>> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
>>> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
>>> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem to
>>> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and helped
>>> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard will
>>> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University of
>>> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so they
>>> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to keep
>>> him in Leicester.
>>> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
>>> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the recent
>>> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of a
>>> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of these
>>> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University, as you
>>> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard although
>>> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
>>> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par, perhaps
>>> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling that
>>> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been elevated,
>>> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
>>> within the church.
>>> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
>>> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see the
>>> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
>>> membership will be informed.
>>>
>>> Best wishes
>>>
>>> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Yes.

Sorry, I seem to be getting hotter under the collar again as I think about
this issue. I suspect the general public doesn't really understand how work
at universities is funded. My husband just told me that in his grant
writing days at an American university that usually ranks high on the list
dollars for research, he used to request almost double what he needed to
pay his own salary & benefits (& those of any programmers working under him
on the same project) to allow for the "overhead" charged by the university.
And he was doing research for which the only material investment was in
state of the art computing equipment.

I don't know the situation in the UK, but again would suggest that it's
worth looking into where the University of Leicester's money does come
from, and whether the funders are happy with the conduct of this project &
its aftermath. I'd further suggest that if the experience of the Richard
III Society is well publicized, there may be less enthusiasm for supporting
future research projects on the part of private funding sources.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> This is probably endemic to all governmental and educational bodies, once
> they some money it becomes "purposes" for whatever they wish, and have a
> really difficult time actually nailing money spent into the proper
> accounting which businesses must do.
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > For some reason that last message was sent automagically by gmail. Please
> > ignore the bottom paragraph which I intended to delete, & here is the
> link
> > to the University's statement of accounting
> >
> >
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
> > .
> >
> > I think a more detailed accounting should be called for
> >
> > (1) exactly what was spent on the Society's agenda (the excavation and
> > study of Richard's remains) vs the University's agenda (exploration and
> > further work on Greyfriars - not questioning its usefulness, but we
> should
> > know)
> >
> > (2) where did the University's pot of money come from that they allocated
> > to the dig.
> >
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
> >> University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever
> portion
> >> ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
> >> have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
> >> Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
> >> particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
> >> University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
> >> excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
> >> was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according
> to a
> >> slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of
> the
> >> GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University,
> whereas
> >> members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
> >> the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and
> in as
> >> many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
> >> nutters, will understand that money talks.
> >>
> >> Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
> >> related to the dig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the
> public,
> >> albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
> >> about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
> >> Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount
> because
> >> of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
> >> economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
> >> public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
> >> University to be beholden to its funders.
> >>
> >> A J
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
> >> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> **
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
> >>> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re
> what
> >>> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It
> was not
> >>> marked private and confidential so here it is.
> >>> Christine
> >>> Loyaulte me Lie
> >>>
> >>> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> >>> Tue, 17:04
> >>>
> >>> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> >>> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >>> From C HOLMES
> >>> To Richard Van Allen
> >>> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
> >>>
> >>> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
> >>> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> >>> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >>>
> >>> Hello Christine,
> >>> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
> >>> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the
> subject of
> >>> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter
> is in
> >>> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> >>> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
> >>> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem
> to
> >>> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and
> helped
> >>> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard
> will
> >>> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University
> of
> >>> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so
> they
> >>> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to
> keep
> >>> him in Leicester.
> >>> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> >>> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the
> recent
> >>> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of
> a
> >>> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of
> these
> >>> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University,
> as you
> >>> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard
> although
> >>> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
> >>> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par,
> perhaps
> >>> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling
> that
> >>> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been
> elevated,
> >>> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
> >>> within the church.
> >>> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
> >>> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see
> the
> >>> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
> >>> membership will be informed.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>>
> >>> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

You see, I read those and think "grant application" language, and also "what rot!"

"Tell his story with dignity"? This from the cathedral who put out a brief referring to Richard's "dishonourable characteristics"? And how exactly do they tell his story? By referring to the fact that he spent 99.9% of his life *not* in Leicester? By recommending that people go and visit Middleham, Sheriff Hutton, York, Barnard Castle, Raby, Scarborough and London and Nottingham? By stating that Richard was born elsewhere, brought up elsewhere, lived and worked elsewhere, gave fortunes in money to churches and cities and towns elsewhere, and because Leicester Castle was so run-down, Richard had to stay in an inn before the battle which claimed his life. Are they going to tell the story "ith dignity" about how his naked abused body was hog-tied over a mule and brought through Leicester streets before being exposed for two days and then buried shamefully in a makeshift grave near a lesser noble who had a proper stone coffin (which they are now going to unearth again). And come the Dissolution, no-one even thought to remove his remains to somewhere else for honourable burial (as happened to John Howard's remains) - they were pretty much abandoned and lost. I'm sorry to sound so angry and frustrated about this but this sort of language is a con and the whole thing sounds shoddy to me. The cathedral will have their re-ordering sorted, with nice mood-lighting etc and claim it is all for Richard. The Society might contribute a banner (mention of such coming from the East Midlands group - yet again no other regional or national group gets a look in); there might be a laminated board on the wall nearby and a "earphones-audio tour" with appropriate music and a famous name doing the narration. Imo, this would Disney-fy the whole thing. Leicester have commodified Richard lock-stock and barrel.

Regarding any liturgical committee for the re-burial, this again speaks volumes about the lack of consultation or public awareness about the process. Considering that the legal challenge is precisely concerned with the lack of consultation and the process thereof, I do not understand why bodies in Leicester appear to be going ahead, yet again, without any wider consultation. Why should a member of the English Dept of Leic University be on the liturgical panel?

The whole process needs to be halted if it is under judicial review.

Col


--- In , "Claire M Jordan" <whitehound@...> wrote:

> And I have to say that both the acting dean and the dean elect sounded more
> positive in the replies I got from them (see post "Replies from Leicester"
> on April 17th) than this letter would lead one to suppose. The acting dean
> said "We hope that the space created in which the King will lie will
> engender a sense of awe and wonder, using lighting, artefacts, textiles and
> more, which will tell his story with dignity and inspire visitors of all
> ages and backgrounds." and the incoming dean "I am very aware of the
> extraordinary responsibility we have to lay the King finally to rest with
> due honour and dignity. We will not come to quick design or decision but are
> seeking the very best advice. We will wish to mark his place of burial with
> the highest quality craftsmanship and in a way which not only will read well
> in our generations but for centuries to come."
>
> I had a reply from the Uni a few days ago which said "I have forwarded your
> letter to my colleague Professor Gordon Campbell who is a member of the
> liturgical group for the reburial of Richard III, and will be able to feed
> your thoughts into the committree along with those of other interested
> parties and members of the public."
>
> Whilst not terribly inspiring this suggests that it may be useful to keep
> writing and that they *may* take public desire for a proper tomb into
> account.
>

Supposed to be working but broke off to tell you this.
Univesities get their funding from a variety of sources. Their UK government funding comes from a complex formula based on the number of UK students, their mode of attendance, the subject they study etc (so Aeronautics and Veterinary Sciences generate much more income than English Literature because they need more facilities/equipment) - and of course from fees which the students pay.  Overseas students generate a lot more (because they have to pay the 'economic' cost of the course) and that's why they're wooed. Projects like the R3 dig would normally be expected to be commercially funded - of course unis have always generated a substantial proportion of their monies from commercial research sponsorship. As they couldn't have predicted it was going to happen I doubt it was a cost built into the archaeology syllabus.
Did the R3 soc have a written agreement which outlined the conditions of its sponsorship? Any commerical company would; and stipulate its rights to the outcomes. Otherwise why sponsor, unless purely for kudos, and I think few do this with that motive nowadays.
Has anyone asked? 


________________________________
From: A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
To:
Sent: Sunday, 28 April 2013, 15:20
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from SocietyPress Officer re whats happening in Leicester


Yes.

Sorry, I seem to be getting hotter under the collar again as I think about
this issue. I suspect the general public doesn't really understand how work
at universities is funded. My husband just told me that in his grant
writing days at an American university that usually ranks high on the list
dollars for research, he used to request almost double what he needed to
pay his own salary & benefits (& those of any programmers working under him
on the same project) to allow for the "overhead" charged by the university.
And he was doing research for which the only material investment was in
state of the art computing equipment.

I don't know the situation in the UK, but again would suggest that it's
worth looking into where the University of Leicester's money does come
from, and whether the funders are happy with the conduct of this project &
its aftermath.  I'd further suggest that if the experience of the Richard
III Society is well publicized, there may be less enthusiasm for supporting
future research projects on the part of private funding sources.

A J


On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Pamela Bain <pbain@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> This is probably endemic to all governmental and educational bodies, once
> they some money it becomes "purposes" for whatever they wish, and have a
> really difficult time actually nailing money spent into the proper
> accounting which businesses must do.
>
> On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM, "A J Hibbard" <ajhibbard@...> wrote:
>
> > For some reason that last message was sent automagically by gmail. Please
> > ignore the bottom paragraph which I intended to delete, & here is the
> link
> > to the University's statement of accounting
> >
> >
> http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
> > .
> >
> > I think a more detailed accounting should be called for
> >
> > (1) exactly what was spent on the Society's agenda (the excavation and
> > study of Richard's remains) vs the University's agenda (exploration and
> > further work on Greyfriars - not questioning its usefulness, but we
> should
> > know)
> >
> > (2) where did the University's pot of money come from that they allocated
> > to the dig.
> >
> >
> > A J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:27 AM, A J Hibbard <ajhibbard@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I still would like to know the source of the money used by Leicester
> >> University to do their part of the work on this project. Whatever
> portion
> >> ultimately came from the public (tax dollars), the public should know &
> >> have some say about its use. Certainly the money from the Richard III
> >> Society came from the public, albeit a portion of the public with a very
> >> particular focus (& who, I suspect, may have been unhappy about the
> >> University's not-so-hidden agenda with respect to the dig - focussed on
> >> excavating Greyfriars). It's also worth pointing out again, that of what
> >> was referred to as "the risk money" for the Greyfriars dig (according
> to a
> >> slide from the recent conference in Leicester and including the cost of
> the
> >> GPR Survey) only about a quarter (10,000) came from the University,
> whereas
> >> members of the Society contributed nearly 60%. I think that members have
> >> the right to expect its Society to make its voice heard as loudly and
> in as
> >> many ways as possible. Even most folks who think Society members are
> >> nutters, will understand that money talks.
> >>
> >> Here is the link again to the University's own accounting of expenses
> >> related to the dig
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We know that the money from the Richard III Society came from the
> public,
> >> albeit a portion of the public with a very particular focus. And what
> >> about the money put up (in much smaller amounts) by the Leicester City
> >> Council - was that not public money, and a relatively small amount
> because
> >> of the feared backlash by that same public in times of a downturn in the
> >> economy? I suspect that some part of the University's funding was also
> >> public money. All of which, in my mind, adds up to the necessity for the
> >> University to be beholden to its funders.
> >>
> >> A J
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 5:43 AM, christineholmes651@... <
> >> christineholmes651@...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> **
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hello All, thought you might like to see the answer I received from
> >>> Richard Van Allen The Society Press Officer to a question I posed re
> what
> >>> was happening re Richard since we received The Society Bulletin. It
> was not
> >>> marked private and confidential so here it is.
> >>> Christine
> >>> Loyaulte me Lie
> >>>
> >>> Tue, 23 Apr 2013 at 17:04
> >>> Tue, 17:04
> >>>
> >>> FROM C HOLMES TO 1 recipient
> >>> Re: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >>> From C HOLMES
> >>> To Richard Van Allen
> >>> From: Richard Van Allen <rva@...>
> >>>
> >>> To: 'C HOLMES' <christineholmes651@...>
> >>> Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 11:21
> >>> Subject: RE: Anything happening re Richard and Leicester
> >>>
> >>> Hello Christine,
> >>> Thank you for your Email and your query about progress. The reason that
> >>> both yourself and the membership have not heard anything on the
> subject of
> >>> the re-interment of Richard's remains recently is because the matter
> is in
> >>> limbo, as you may have sensed from the lack of media coverage, however
> >>> ongoing discussions are taking place. We have received similar comments
> >>> from a number of members recently however what most people don't seem
> to
> >>> realise is that the Society, although it initiated, helped lead and
> helped
> >>> finance the project, it does not have any say in where and how Richard
> will
> >>> be re-interred. The exhumation licence was taken out by the University
> of
> >>> Leicester and they are the official guardians of Richard's remains so
> they
> >>> have a say in where he will be buried and they are of course keen to
> keep
> >>> him in Leicester.
> >>> Really the only place in Leicester for this to happen is Leicester
> >>> Cathedral, however the Dean seems to be being obtuse although the
> recent
> >>> Leicester Mercury poll (slab or tomb) with 95% of readers in favour of
> a
> >>> tomb must have opened his eyes as he would have realised that many of
> these
> >>> would have been his own parishioners. With regard to the University,
> as you
> >>> say they are looking to take the credit for the finding of Richard
> although
> >>> I have a feeling this is because Leicester University feel that this
> >>> project may just elevate their status and put them if not on a par,
> perhaps
> >>> just below, that of the leading universities. I also have a feeling
> that
> >>> the Dean of Leicester Cathedral feels that his position has been
> elevated,
> >>> now being in the public view, and that this might effect his progress
> >>> within the church.
> >>> As I have already mentioned we are having ongoing discussions with the
> >>> Dean and in fact the Chairman visited Leicester just last week to see
> the
> >>> Dean. Please be assured that as soon as we have anything concrete the
> >>> membership will be informed.
> >>>
> >>> Best wishes
> >>>
> >>> Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
> 
>






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

Yahoo! Groups Links

From: colyngbourne
To:
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society
Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester


> "Tell his story with dignity"? This from the cathedral who put out a brief
> referring to Richard's "dishonourable characteristics"?

They sound as though they're thinking better of it, though. And from the
point of view of maintaining interest in Richard it's better to have another
focus of attention on him, rather than burying him somewhere which is
*already* interested in him and already has museums dedicated to him etc..

It would be nice for young Gloucester to go home to the north, but he really
gave up being that person when he became king. As one of the two most
English kings England ever had, there's something to be said for burying him
close to the dead centre of England - like the sacrifice they used to bury
under a building to keep it strong, except for the whole country. And
Leicester means staying close to his men, which would probably please him,
and it will bring in more revenue to a poor area of his kingdom, which would
be certainly please him.

I might feel more strongly in favour of York if Ann was there too - but as
it stands, the nearer he is to York, the further he is from Ann. He ought
really to be in Westminster Abbey but if that's not possible I don't
personally have a problem with Leicester, so long as they do a good job.

> Are they going to tell the story "ith dignity" about how his naked abused
> body was hog-tied over a mule and brought through Leicester streets before
> being exposed for two days and then buried shamefully in a makeshift grave

Probably yes - and then honoured in the same town.

I have to agree with Col here - I think the Cathedral's letter is bland and says little more than their press releases did at the time they announced their intention to have a slab tomb. No real change. 

--- On Sun, 28/4/13, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:

From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester
To:
Date: Sunday, 28 April, 2013, 17:46
















 









From: colyngbourne

To:

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:27 PM

Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society

Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester



> "Tell his story with dignity"? This from the cathedral who put out a brief

> referring to Richard's "dishonourable characteristics"?



They sound as though they're thinking better of it, though. 




MARKETPLACE



<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1ckfq5s2e%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d587033119%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=1282hi0sp%2fN%3d7YqyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121rmvh3s,aid$_mM3hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">



<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1clu0jvi5%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1051920218%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=128h7chs0%2fN%3d64qyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121sf15ib,aid$i.I3hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">



<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1ckhnvbjs%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d469862235%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=1287k0iiu%2fN%3d7IqyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eghqr8,aid$GGE4hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">





Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback



















.

Now this is really funny - Yahoo seems to have inserted the word "marketplace" here (it appears as an ad on my sent email) - this isn't me being disparaging about Leicester or something !!!!

--- On Sun, 28/4/13, Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...> wrote:

From: Janet Ashton <jaangelfire@...>
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester
To:
Date: Sunday, 28 April, 2013, 18:29
















 









I have to agree with Col here - I think the Cathedral's letter is bland and says little more than their press releases did at the time they announced their intention to have a slab tomb. No real change. 



--- On Sun, 28/4/13, Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...> wrote:



From: Claire M Jordan <whitehound@...>

Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester

To:

Date: Sunday, 28 April, 2013, 17:46



 



From: colyngbourne



To:



Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 4:27 PM



Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society



Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester



> "Tell his story with dignity"? This from the cathedral who put out a brief



> referring to Richard's "dishonourable characteristics"?



They sound as though they're thinking better of it, though. 



MARKETPLACE







<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1ckfq5s2e%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d587033119%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=1282hi0sp%2fN%3d7YqyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121rmvh3s,aid$_mM3hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">







<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1clu0jvi5%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d1051920218%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=128h7chs0%2fN%3d64qyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121sf15ib,aid$i.I3hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">







<img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52&T=1ckhnvbjs%2fX%3d1367167482%2fE%3d1705297333%2fR%3dgroups%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d469862235%2fH%3dY29udGVudD0iR3JvdXBzO0ZsaWNrcjtHZW9jaXRpZXM7VFY7TmV3cztQZW9wbGU7U21hbGxfQnVzaW5lc3M7RW50ZXJ0YWlubWVudDtBbGVydHM7Q2FsZW5kYXI7IiBkaXNhYmxlc2h1ZmZsaW5nPSIxIiBzZXJ2ZUlkPSJlY2NjNjQ4YS1iMDIyLTExZTItYmFiOS1jYjhkYTczNTVmNTIiIHNpdGVJZD0iNDQ1MjU1MSIgdFN0bXA9IjEzNjcxNjc0ODIyNzMzNjciIA--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d1927C10A&U=1287k0iiu%2fN%3d7IqyM2KL5OE-%2fC%3d-2%2fD%3dMKP1%2fB%3d-2%2fV%3d0"><img width="1" height="1" alt="" src="http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132n430sd(gid$eccc648a-b022-11e2-bab9-cb8da7355f52,st$1367167482273367,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121eghqr8,aid$GGE4hGKLFuE-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)">









Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest " Unsubscribe " Terms of Use " Send us Feedback



.

Hi, Colyngbourne -



A question for you or anyone else who may know - the "Collateral
Descendants" that you mention. So far as I know, they don't include Michael
Ibsen or his family. Do you know who they are? Is their relationship to
Richard proven to be valid?



I would be surprised if they are allowed to maintain their action, as so
much time has passed since Richard's passing. In other words, I think if
Richard's family wanted to claim his remains, they should have done so
within 100 years or so of his passing. But, I hasten to add, I'm not British
and there's probably some British law that would apply to this situation
that I'm not aware of.



Loyaulte me lie,



Johanne



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Johanne L. Tournier



Email - jltournier60@...

or jltournier@...



"With God, all things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of colyngbourne
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society
Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester





This is partly why the Collateral Descendants's legal challenge should be
supported: some people might not agree with the entirety of their challenge
but something - someone - needs to challenge why and how a University Dept.
should have "legal right" to the remains of a king, once discovered. It is
an unprecedented case, and such, should be brought out of the hands of a
civic university, who on the face of it, are seeking to maximise their part
in the discovery to the clear "whitewashing" from the picture of those who
played the most major roles - PL and JAH - and the Society's support and
funding.

People in the future will look at how this was handled and be staggered that
it could be decided like this, without national consultation. Amongst other
reasons, I am supporting the legal challenge so that something fitting to
this king can be provided in a place which is more fitting to him; and also,
to challenge the authority of those who somehow have an exhumation licence
for "unknown persons" with which they then wish to re-inter the last of the
Plantagenets.

Col





<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWkz
MWR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM0
NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--?act=reply&messageNum=34
555> Reply via web post


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Mes
sage%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20Press%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happenin
g%20in%20Leicester> Reply to sender


<mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Message%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20P
ress%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happening%20in%20Leicester> Reply to group


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3V0
ZTFwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Start a New Topic


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/34543;_ylc=X3o
DMTM2YzE0c25wBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
zZ0lkAzM0NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOAR0cGNJZAMzNDU0Mw-
-> Messages in this topic (8)

Recent Activity:

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN
WFjM2VtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-?o=6> New Members 4

.
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYXN
vdGtmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-> New Photos 1


<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXFvcTdmB
F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Visit Your Group

MARKETPLACE


<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1214pm0l0,aid$GvVgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____


<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121keso9c,aid$TfdgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>

_____


<http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121omgote,aid$gPlgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>


<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2wwcG5sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MTU3MzI4>
Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
<mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
=34555/stime=1367157328/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>

It seems from the letter that nothing has been resolved or has move forward! If they were reluctant to have a table tomb at the beginning can we be sure that they would change their publicly announced intent?
I would rather he has a tomb and a dignified burial in York than thrown under a slab in Leicester.

Ishita Bandyo
Sent from my iPad

On Apr 28, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:

> Hi, Colyngbourne -
>
> A question for you or anyone else who may know - the "Collateral
> Descendants" that you mention. So far as I know, they don't include Michael
> Ibsen or his family. Do you know who they are? Is their relationship to
> Richard proven to be valid?
>
> I would be surprised if they are allowed to maintain their action, as so
> much time has passed since Richard's passing. In other words, I think if
> Richard's family wanted to claim his remains, they should have done so
> within 100 years or so of his passing. But, I hasten to add, I'm not British
> and there's probably some British law that would apply to this situation
> that I'm not aware of.
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
> Johanne
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of colyngbourne
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society
> Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester
>
> This is partly why the Collateral Descendants's legal challenge should be
> supported: some people might not agree with the entirety of their challenge
> but something - someone - needs to challenge why and how a University Dept.
> should have "legal right" to the remains of a king, once discovered. It is
> an unprecedented case, and such, should be brought out of the hands of a
> civic university, who on the face of it, are seeking to maximise their part
> in the discovery to the clear "whitewashing" from the picture of those who
> played the most major roles - PL and JAH - and the Society's support and
> funding.
>
> People in the future will look at how this was handled and be staggered that
> it could be decided like this, without national consultation. Amongst other
> reasons, I am supporting the legal challenge so that something fitting to
> this king can be provided in a place which is more fitting to him; and also,
> to challenge the authority of those who somehow have an exhumation licence
> for "unknown persons" with which they then wish to re-inter the last of the
> Plantagenets.
>
> Col
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWkz
> MWR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM0
> NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--?act=reply&messageNum=34
> 555> Reply via web post
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Mes
> sage%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20Press%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happenin
> g%20in%20Leicester> Reply to sender
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Message%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20P
> ress%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happening%20in%20Leicester> Reply to group
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3V0
> ZTFwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Start a New Topic
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/34543;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2YzE0c25wBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzM0NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOAR0cGNJZAMzNDU0Mw-
> -> Messages in this topic (8)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN
> WFjM2VtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-?o=6> New Members 4
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYXN
> vdGtmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-> New Photos 1
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXFvcTdmB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Visit Your Group
>
> MARKETPLACE
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1214pm0l0,aid$GvVgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121keso9c,aid$TfdgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121omgote,aid$gPlgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2wwcG5sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MTU3MzI4>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =34555/stime=1367157328/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>

Hi Ishita,

from their webpage, they don't have Michael Ibsen listed in their group, no. Maybe they have been in touch with him, maybe not - I don't think we can surmise or make any kind of judgement either way. What I do know is that in an interview with the Camden New Journal, Michael Ibsen has said ""As long as he has a decent burial space and people are respectful to his memory then I'm happy wherever he goes".

I would imagine that the Collateral Descendants' "descent" would necessarily be valid and will have been thoroughly examined and confirmed before any legal challenge was made. You don't embark on costly proceedings just for the sheer hell of it and a made-up genealogical table. There is no benefit from this challenge other than the rightful re-interment of Richard's remains in a place that fits with his life and times and connections, rather than his death.

The issue of time is one which is sometimes raised - quoting the English Heritage/Church of England "Best Practice for Burials", which says there is "no legal obligation" to consult when the remains are over 100 years old. However, in the very same paragraph it also states - "Nevertheless, even for remains over 100 years old, where there is no legal obligation to trace next of kin (Annexe L1), it would be ethical to accord views of living close family members strong weight." The same document states firmly at its outset - "There is a need to give particular weight to the feelings and views of living family members when known.
There is a need for decisions to be made in the public interest, and in an accountable way."

Neither of these things have happened. And extraordinarily so when considering these are the remains of a nation's king.

Cheers,
Col


--- In , Johanne Tournier <jltournier60@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Colyngbourne -
>
>
>
> A question for you or anyone else who may know - the "Collateral
> Descendants" that you mention. So far as I know, they don't include Michael
> Ibsen or his family. Do you know who they are? Is their relationship to
> Richard proven to be valid?
>
>
>
> I would be surprised if they are allowed to maintain their action, as so
> much time has passed since Richard's passing. In other words, I think if
> Richard's family wanted to claim his remains, they should have done so
> within 100 years or so of his passing. But, I hasten to add, I'm not British
> and there's probably some British law that would apply to this situation
> that I'm not aware of.
>
>
>
> Loyaulte me lie,
>
>
>
> Johanne
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Johanne L. Tournier
>
>
>
> Email - jltournier60@...
>
> or jltournier@...
>
>
>
> "With God, all things are possible."
>
> - Jesus of Nazareth
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
> From:
> [mailto:] On Behalf Of colyngbourne
> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 10:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Email Message I got from Society
> Press Officer re whats happening in Leicester
>
>
>
>
>
> This is partly why the Collateral Descendants's legal challenge should be
> supported: some people might not agree with the entirety of their challenge
> but something - someone - needs to challenge why and how a University Dept.
> should have "legal right" to the remains of a king, once discovered. It is
> an unprecedented case, and such, should be brought out of the hands of a
> civic university, who on the face of it, are seeking to maximise their part
> in the discovery to the clear "whitewashing" from the picture of those who
> played the most major roles - PL and JAH - and the Society's support and
> funding.
>
> People in the future will look at how this was handled and be staggered that
> it could be decided like this, without national consultation. Amongst other
> reasons, I am supporting the legal challenge so that something fitting to
> this king can be provided in a place which is more fitting to him; and also,
> to challenge the authority of those who somehow have an exhumation licence
> for "unknown persons" with which they then wish to re-inter the last of the
> Plantagenets.
>
> Col
>
>
>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxOWkz
> MWR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1zZ0lkAzM0
> NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--?act=reply&messageNum=34
> 555> Reply via web post
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Mes
> sage%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20Press%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happenin
> g%20in%20Leicester> Reply to sender
>
>
> <mailto:?subject=Re%3A%20%5BRichard%20
> III%20Society%20Forum%5D%20Email%20Message%20%20I%20got%20from%20Society%20P
> ress%20Officer%20re%20whats%20happening%20in%20Leicester> Reply to group
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY3V0
> ZTFwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIE
> c2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Start a New Topic
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//message/34543;_ylc=X3o
> DMTM2YzE0c25wBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBG1
> zZ0lkAzM0NTU1BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOAR0cGNJZAMzNDU0Mw-
> -> Messages in this topic (8)
>
> Recent Activity:
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN
> WFjM2VtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2d
> GwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-?o=6> New Members 4
>
> .
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group//spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYXN
> vdGtmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGw
> Ec2xrA3ZwaG90BHN0aW1lAzEzNjcxNTczMjg-> New Photos 1
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlOXFvcTdmB
> F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1Mjc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA
> 3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM2NzE1NzMyOA--> Visit Your Group
>
> MARKETPLACE
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$1214pm0l0,aid$GvVgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121keso9c,aid$TfdgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
> _____
>
>
> <http://csc.beap.bc.yahoo.com/yi?bv=1.0.0&bs=(132kkoetf(gid$48f9cfa8-b00b-11
> e2-8a5b-4b53c33e5e5a,st$1367157329000009,si$4452551,sp$1705297333,pv$1,v$2.0
> ))&t=J_3-D_3&al=(as$121omgote,aid$gPlgAWKL4Jk-,cr$-1,ct$25,at$H,eob$-1)>
>
>
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZ2wwcG5sBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzU1M
> jc3OTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1Mjk3MzMzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzY3MTU3MzI4>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Switch to:
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Change%20
> Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Email%20Delive
> ry:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscri
> be> Unsubscribe . <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Use .
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
> edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback
>
> .
>
>
> <http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=5527791/grpspId=1705297333/msgId
> =34555/stime=1367157328/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, this should be addressed to Johanne, I had several pages open at once, and mistook who was asking the question. :)

Col

--- In , colyngbourne <no_reply@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ishita,